The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

BostonMA[edit]

Final (84/38/11); Ended Wed, 3 Jan 2007 15:39:17 UTC

BostonMA (talk · contribs) – I've got a good one here, folks! An editor who needs the tools, would use them wisely and would benefit Wikipedia by having an extra button or two. I first met Boston when I tried to pick a fight over an article that I thought was a speedy [1] whilst editing under the influence of a bad mood. Well, not only was I wrong but BostonMA was the soul of patience [2], calmly correcting me and suggesting compromise and solutions for the betterment of Wikipedia. I took the article to AfD - not quite ready to back down but sufficiently in awe of Boston's good sense to say so in the nom [3]. More reasonableness followed from Boston [4] showing a grasp of Wikipedia policy and conventions that cannot help but please. Further more, Boston kept this up for the rest of the AfD, being reasonable [5], incisive [6], doing research [7] and generally ensuring that a potentially devisive AfD was turned into one of the best discussions about an article I've ever seen. And bear in mind: this was an AfD on Boston's own article. Obviously, I asked Boston about becoming an admin immediately [8] but Boston demurred at the time (always a good sign). But now we're here, and this is why you should say Support:

Just as a note, this editor sometimes edits in contraversial subjects. Whilst editing, Boston maintains a positive attitude and is quick to seek compromise [55] (always) and mediation [56] (if ever things get heated). But editing in contraversial subjects, as we all know, attracts various interested parties to troll, attack and attempt to compromise every and any editor here when we stray outside of the easy subjects. BostonMA handles these brilliantly, engaging with those who can be engaged with but rightly not feeding those who can't. Those who can't may appear here. I don't wish to speak for Boston, but I'd join with this candidate's previous practice and advise not feeding them.

To conclude: been here for over a year [57], piles of good edits, needs the tools, would make good use of them, won't abuse them. I commend this candidate to the community. ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Those who know me, know that my markup editing skills are poor. Any errors at this stage in this RfA are mine and mine alone; please notify me, not the candidate: I'm the one who needs to learn. I've only been here two years... ;o) ➨ ЯEDVERS[reply]

Co-nomination by Samir धर्म: While Redvers essentially said it all, I wanted to throw in my opinion of the level-headedness and reasonableness of BostonMA. This editor has helped out in a number of challenging debates on articles, and has impressed me with his cool head and his thoughtful approach to problem-solving. I think he would be an asset to the administrative crew for that alone -- Samir धर्म 08:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. --BostonMA talk 22:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by candidate

A number of editors have raised the issue of articles that I have tagged for deletion. I think there have been valid criticisms raised. I think I'm hearing a strong consensus that I should a) ensure that creators of articles are notified on their talk page when articles are tagged as candidates for speedy deletion, and b) that I should be more cautious in my use of speedy tags.

At the suggestion of an editor who voted oppose I would like to make a clarification about my answer to question 6. Perhaps I did not communicate well, or perhaps I misunderstand some of the concerns expressed regarding my answer. I intended to express a preference for avoiding the deletion of (possibly poorly written) articles on encyclopedic, so it has surprised me that others have taken a different reading. Part of my answer reads:

"As a normal editor, have tended to prefer removing spam and stubbification to outright deletion for bad articles about encyclopedic subjects. As an admin, I think I would tend to avoid deleting such articles."

I hope that emphasizing this point helps to clear up possible misconceptions. (comment added 00:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC))

Information on the stalking allegations requested by an editor

To explain these alegations, I need to present some background information. It is not my intent, when presenting this background information suggest that user rosencomet deserves blame in this matter. Relatively speaking, rosencomet is not a heavily experienced user, and in my opinion has overcome a number of earlier mistakes, and I do not have a quarrel with him. (see recent contributions by rosencomet).

User:rosencomet had on a previous occassion identified himself as the executive director of Association for Consciousness Exploration.

A number of pages with external links to the Association for Consciousness Exploration external website have been deleted. As a result, they do not show up in my contributions list or in the contributions list for User:rosencomet.

On 00:34, 26 Oct 2006 I posted this comment to user rosencomet requesting that he read WP:Vanity prior to adding new links.

I then removed a number of links in articles to the Association for Consciousness Exploration external website. Only 4 of those articles show in my contributions list, but I believe there was more.

I believe, but again, lack the diffs, that rosencomet added new links to articles, which prompted me at 00:49 to leave this spam warning on rosencomet's talk page. I left a note on an admin's talk page as well.

Paying more attention, I discovered that there was a discussion at AN/I (which can be viewed in the next link) in which User:Timmy12 was accused of stalking rosencomet by deleting links of the sort in question. I added this comment on the AN/I in which I explained that as an RC patroller, it was my practice to examine the contributions history of editors of those I reverted to determine whether other edits also require reversion.

Over the next few days, the situation repeated itself, with the accusations of stalking extending to other editors who had become involved in reverting the links and a larger number of articles involved. At various points I asked for advice, such as this request. The response which I received suggest that I nuke all of the links.

Although no evidence in the arbcom case has been presented in support of the allegation that I was stalking, I believe the allegations can only refer to the above events. My understanding of WP:Harassment is that my actions were not stalking. I am of course, willing to be corrected on the matter and behave accordingly.

Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 00:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I am happy with my current contributions to Wikipedia. Since there is a push for me to be given a mop, I read that as a sign that those who wield the mop could use assistance. The sorts of assistance that are needed would drive where I placed my efforts. So a good part of my focus would be on whatever items on the adminstrative backlog are in most in need of help at the moment. However as a starting point, I would spend time at WP:IFD, to atone for a sin committed by a friend. (Not saying what). Of course over time, I imagine that I will discover that I am more suited to some tasks than others.
Addition per request by User:Kchase02. I think I would have little difficulty helping with Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons. Assuming that this continued to have a serious backlog, and assuming that no-one pulls me aside and suggests that my efforts would be more valuable elsewhere, then I imagine that this would be a good starting point. However, I note that the administrative backlog seems to be somewhat dynamic. About 2 weeks ago, there was a considerable backlog with Suspected Sockpuppets. However, in the last two weeks several admins have stepped up to the bar and have been making good progress. I hope that helps to clarify. (added 12:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC))
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: User:Redvers has described my editting as Wikignoming. This is a generous way to describe the fact that I have written any Featured Articles, or even come close. Turboencabulator was an article I created the day before April Fools day. I did mean to tie the two together, because the article itself is about a hoax. Unfortunately, while I was off-wiki, there was a heated dispute about whether my article was a honest article about a hoax, or whether it was itself a hoax. (It isn't I assure you.) I feel bad that my choice of date contributed to a waste of editors' time. I guess I am pleased with this article because it attracted the contributions of other editors. John Oswald (activist) did not have such a lucky fate, and consequently bears the imprint of my editorial deficiencies. (Hint: If anyone wants to contribute to this article about a notable, yet largely forgotton individual, or give me editting tips, I would be so pleased!)
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have been involved in a number of conflicts. I have been heavily involved in two ongoing conflicts, as well as some more minor ones. I was also been involved in a long term conflict as a volunteer mediator. One of the major conflicts in which I was involved occured at the Muhammad article. At various points in the conflict I asked for sanity checks from several experienced editors who had in the past caught my attention as being thoughtful. Although I received positive feedback on my handling of the situation, after a period, I felt unequal to the situation and asked for assistance from the mediation cabal. The conflict is currently in an "odd" state. The fighting seems to have died down, but it isn't clear that there is mutual understanding either.
Another conflict in which I have been involved has occured on a number of pages related to Starwood Festival. I did not initiate mediation in that conflict, but a number of steps in the dispute resolution process have been taken, from mediation, to a user conduct RfC, to an article RfC, and now there is a case before ArbCom. At the time I am writing this, no evidence has been presented in the ArbCom case, but it looks to me as though the conflict may be resolving itself. (spoke too soon :-( --BostonMA talk 23:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: There are many fine points in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. New users may be intimidated. We don't want to discourage new users from doing things that seem right. WP:IAR gives new users a degree of leeway to make mistakes without being bitten. That is one of the uses of WP:IAR, but there is also a rationale for applying WP:IAR for experienced users. Policies and Guidelines are a form of crystalized consensus. However, the community cannot always anticipate cases that might arise. We don't wan't to straight-jacket ourselves with bureaucracy. So, when unanticipated events arise, editors should be free to improvise, always bearing in mind that a) working out of process may cause friction, and b) there should be a reasonable expectation that the action taken will be retroactively seen as appropriate. WP:IAR doesn't exist to allow capriciousness or snubbing the concerns of the community.
With regard to WP:SNOW: WP:SNOW is an essay, not a guideline or policy (at least not yet). I do believe that it is at times appropriate to cut off discussion when that discussion may exacerbate a conflict rather than lead toward resolution. However, I think it is important to realize that if a civil and constructive discussion is taking place, there is always a possibility that a consensus will emerge around a POV that was originally held by a small minority. In my opinion, it is important not to prejudge the outcome of such a discussion based on an initial expression of positions.


5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A: I think this question opens the door to a number of philosophical issues that Wikipedians need not resolve -- such as why do we incarcerate criminals? In my mind, the purpose of blocks is to protect Wikipedia (or Wikipedians) from disruption, vandalism, and various other threats. In some cases a particularly egregious act may result in an editor being permanently banned. One observer might view that as punishment for the egregious act, while another observer sees it as managing the risk of repetition of that act or similar acts. I believe that if a block cannot be justified on the utilitarian ground of protecting the project, then it would not be appropriate. I leave open the possibility that a block may be justifiable on those grounds, yet the blocker does not recognize those grounds.
6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
A: My understanding of Speedy Deletion is that an article which meets certain requirements may be deleted by an admin. That is, it does not require an admin to delete such articles (clarification added BostonMA talk 00:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)). CSD:G11 permits some articles to be deleted even when such articles could be rewritten in an encyclopedic way. (sentence modified 00:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)). (Provided that the fixing the article requires it to be "fundamentally rewritten".) (added 01:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)) As a normal editor, have tended to prefer removing spam and stubbification to outright deletion for bad articles about encyclopedic subjects. As an admin, I think I would tend to avoid deleting such articles. However, I would certainly respect the opinions and actions of admins who choose to delete any article that qualifies for speedy deletion. Perhaps I could be persuaded outright deletion is a better approach than stubbification. However, this is my opinion at the moment.[reply]
7. What experience have you had with evaluating reliable sources outside of Wikipedia?
A: I must confess that I am confused by this question, which may be quite unambiguous to other readers. ("what exeperience have you had outside of Wikipedia with evaluating reliable sources?" vs. "what experience have you had evaluating the sources outside of Wikipedia used for use as reliable sources?") Acknowledging my confusion, I will try to answer both. I served as a mediator for a conflict regarding Sathya Sai Baba, which required extensive evaluation of sources. On the other hand, I have never been on a peer review panel for academic papers or a newspaper reporter or held any other position which required me to evaluate sources. (Give me a clue if you like!)
8. What is the highest level of education you have achieved?
A: I have a Master of Science degree.
9. As I said below, I'd have liked to support, but am concerned by the BITING. Could you comment on the allegations? Do you believe you have violated BITE? What do you think that policy guideline means? - crz crztalk 21:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Reviewing the items that have been pointed out to me, I must regretfully admit that I have bitten the newcomer. In particular, my failure to post messages on user talk pages when tagging an article as a candidate for deletion. WP:BITE doesn't seem to be a hard and fast guideline, but I think the spirit of the guideline is pretty clear. Try to make newcomers welcome. Try not to scare them off. If you have to correct, do so gently. (response added 22:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC))
10. Sorry for taking your time. I have a question regarding WP:RS and "WP:Beware of False Authority". How do you think one should concretely evaluate the reliability of a source which is written by person X and published by Press Y? I mean, what is the algorithm (e.g. 1. searching in google for X 2. etc etc) Sorry if the question looks silly. --Aminz 07:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A The question is not silly, but is a topic about which a great deal could be said. However, rather than going into detail, I'd like to put the question in context. Even when a source is a "fasle authority" as you put it, there may still be an appropriate place for mention of claims made by that source in Wikipedia, especially, if the source represents a notable controversial view. So the question of evaluation sources is in large part deciding what weight to give various views, how they ought to be presented, and in which articles are they appropriate. To answer these questions, it is often not enough to simply look at the source itself, rather it is generally necessary to compare that source with other sources. Suppose an assertion is made by someone with academic credentials in an academic journal. Is the person making the claim an expert in the field to which the claim belongs? Is the journal devoted to that field or to some other? Does the journal represent a selected POV in the field, or is it representative of the general consensus of experts in that field? Very importantly, what do other experts in the field say about the topic of the assertion in question? I hope these comments give an indication of my thinking. However, I very possibly have not answered the question you intended, or to the level of detail you would like, so please feel free to ask for further clarification. (answered BostonMA talk)
11. 100% Practical question: Close this AfD (created in userspace) appropriately. There is no right or wrong decision; you would need to apply your knowledge of policies and guidelines. Summarise your reasons here. --Nearly Headless Nick 11:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A With all due respect to the editor asking the question I would recuse myself from taking action on this AfD because I have definite opinions and biases which would perhaps affect my judgement. The closing admin is expected to evaluate the arguments raised, and not merely count the number of keeps and deletes. I personally believe that the argument that this is listcruft is very strong, and believe that the arguments for keep are quite weak. However, I cannot ignore the fact that there are many keep comments, and that my own opinion on the matter may be hindering me from appreciating or perhaps fully understanding the keep arguments. I think the closing would be better made by an admin who has greater neutrality than myself, or if neutrality is not possible, at least more universal respect from the community. (response made 15:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC))
General comments


Discussion

Support

  1. Strong Support Fairminded and levelheaded in tough situations. --Pigmantalk • contribs 22:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support I first met BostonMA when he showed up out of the blue to politely but firmly warn a user to stop their borderline wiki-stalking behaviour: [58]. Since then, I have seen BostonMA be unfailingly polite, clear, and neutral in numerous situations, including some rather heated and ugly ones. He has educated new users, and rectified and apologized for any mistakes others have pointed out to him. From his exemplary behaviour and knowledge of WP process, I actually assumed he was already an admin until I checked his User page. Strong support for this RfA. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support - All my interactions with him have been positive.--thunderboltz(Deepu) 06:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support This editor can hold an opposing point of view and remain civil and neutral, excellent qualities for an admin. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 07:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Approved. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 09:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support No problems here. --Srikeit 09:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong support. Long overdue. Asteriontalk 09:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support as co-nominator. Brilliant candidate for adminship -- Samir धर्म 10:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong support - I've been encountering this editor all around w/ high quality edits and comments. Good luck. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 10:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I'm Kimchi.sg and I approve this candidate. 16:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support: I know many will oppose because when you want to stand for what you think is right then you annoy some people. Wikipedia process of making admin is FAULTY and it makes those people admin who avoid disputes and try to keep everyone happy. Those people are NOT good and it is too bad for wikipedia. I wish more people like User:BostonMA, User:Netscott, User:Zora to be an admin because they will be coolest admin around because they stand for what is right. However, current process will not get them good support which is too bad for wikipedia. (BTW when I say "stand for what is right" then it does not mean that they do not listen to others or stubborn. Obviously discussing and compromising is one of the best qualities of User:BostonMA and I do not support someone who I do not know good enough) --- ALM 16:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Um... so you think a good admin would be one who tries to get into disputes or doesn't try to make everyone happy? I don't understand. And Wikipedia's process is not faulty just because you think that the wrong people are made admins. The community decides, and the community is allowed to disagree with you. -Amarkov blahedits 16:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I think there are indeed some admins who are strong and stand what they think right (but not many). Furthermore, if someone is involved in mutiple disputes and mediations (Like User:BostonMA) BEFORE being an admin then chances of his being admin reduced dramatically. This is the fault in the system. You can disagree with me but I think so... :) --- ALM 16:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean? That's the fault of the people who dislike such things. If it's irrational, fine, then it's irrational, but it's not the fault of the RFA system that people are irrational. -Amarkov blahedits 16:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It would all depend on why and how the candidate reacted in a dispute. If the candidate was correct in what they did, then I doubt anybody would object. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 16:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Or own up a mistake when he makes one, instead of using lame arguments and excuses. Tintin (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Amarkov said: If it's irrational, fine, then it's irrational, but it's not the fault of the RFA system that people are irrational. I think you get what I meant and you have written it well too. For me a system that stops good people from become admin (even if its fault of people not sytem itself) is a faulty system. For example: these people will hate me even without knowing me because of my User page but I will end up hating myself if I would change my user page just for them. Also for me a ideal admin should only be a GOOD person which User:BostonMA is. That is he discusses, accept mistakes and make compromises (which all User:BostonMA qualities. It does not matter if he know policies at all or not. Because one can read those policies many times in just few days and correct his misunderstadings. Edit count, knowing policies and keeping ALL happy is the basic critaria for being an admin. I think that neither edit-count matters, nor knowing policies and keeping ALL happy. The only think that matter is that person should be a good person. --- ALM 17:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's nice that you don't think those things matter. Other people do, and the proper way to discuss whether or not they matter is not to say "The process is flawed!" The process by which the "true" correct opinion is used to judge things is called dictatorship, and it doesn't work. -Amarkov blahedits 17:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Weak Support There seem to be more than enough reasons above to support even after those that are cancelled out in the reasons to oppose. Just H 17:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Support Boston MA has shown that he is a balanced editor and rarely gets caught up in ad hominem arguments, even when being outright attacked. I feel that his dispute with Dab was primarily a misunderstanding which was blown out of proportion, and when interacting with people from different cultures who speak different primary languages this is bound to happen on occasion. I highly endorse his adminship because BostonMA will jump in and get his feet wet as opposed to "just letting problems solve themselves."- WeniWidiWiki 18:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I've been ill and thus am possibly the most late nominator to support a nominee in the history of the 'pedia. Nevertheless, Boston has my full and unqualified very strong support despite my tardiness and I recommend, again, the addition of a couple of buttons to this editor. He says, making up for an earlier silence not related to Wikipedia, which will now kick back in... ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. --Docg 19:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong Support - A familiar figure on WP:PINQ and a very conscientious contributor.Bakaman 20:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - I extend my full support. Freedom skies| talk  20:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support A great contributor, will make a great, strong admin.Ganfon 21:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I have been looking at Boston's contribs throughout the day, and reading the oppose rationales, and I honestly don't see a problem. I like the user's work, I like the user's contributions to many different areas of WP, I like the user's answers to the questions, and I don't think any abuse of admin powers will take place. -- Kicking222 22:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Despite the concerns brought by those opposing, this user seems to have what it takes to become an admin.--Húsönd 22:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per nom, answers, and strong record of contributions, and relying on the candidate's assurance that he will bear in mind the comments made about his approach to deletion, especially of content submitted by new editors. Newyorkbrad 00:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, with the hope that BostonMA takes the advice to explain what's happening to newbies to avoid biting them. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 01:21Z
  23. Support We could use more common-sense (Hindu?) editors. KazakhPol 01:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support bibliomaniac15 02:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - the only meaningful question is whether or not we trust the candidate with the tools. None of the opposes have given me a reason not to. Administrators don't have to be experts in every area of Wikipedia and they don't have to have an interest in every area or Wikipedia administration - they just have to be trustworthy. BigDT 06:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support The only problem I saw here was his case of newbie biting. However, now that it has been brought up, I don't see Boston ever doing it again. GizzaChat © 11:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support--D-Boy 12:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, per nom. Reasonable editors like Boston are the only thing that keeps Wikipedia from being taken over by crazies. Also, nice vandal ownage. Coemgenus 15:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support While some of Nick's comments worry me I think that your work is just to great to oppose. You will make a fine admin. — Arjun 15:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support--MONGO 15:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Need I say more?? This guy will make a good admin! --SunStar Nettalk 17:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Proto::► 18:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support good admin candidate --rogerd 18:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support, trustworthy and very civil. handles charged disputes extremely well. the issues raised below are of slight concern, but i believe his approach and attitude facilitates quick rectification of any errors on his part. ITAQALLAH 19:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support A9 resolved the BITE issue to my satisfaction. BostonMA is otherwise an excellent candidate.--Kchase T 19:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Withdrawing support for now per the BLP diffs.--Kchase T 09:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Civil, greet new users and rv vandalism (A lot!). Very trustworthy and paticipate in Article for deletion on your last 500 edits. Lots of Wikipedia and mainspace edits. Only problem is you used edit summaried 50% of the time when doing edits. Other than that I support.--PrestonH | talk | contribs | editor review | 19:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support I've watched BostonMA while following the events leading up to the latest arbitration case, and have been impressed by his patience, calmness, and civility. He'd make a good admin. --TheOtherBob 19:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support John254 00:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Ultra-Strong Support If the seemingly racist German guy can keep his status as an Admin after all he has done and BostonMA can't become an admin simply because he keeps a record of what the German guy did, then injustice will have indeed taken place. BostonMA is a user who, although he might be somewhat questionable when it comes to WP:BITE, is very qualified to become a sysop. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Seems to be an overall good editor.-- danntm T C 04:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strong, Strong Support Could hardly find a more qualified user. From the way some of the oppose votes are going below me, you'd think you'd have to have three years experience with an absolutely perfect record to become an admin here! -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 04:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. I have seen a few of his comments which were all respectful, reasonable and civil. --Aminz 04:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, trustworthy. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. A trustworthy, dedicated user. The lack of newbie notification on speedy deletions doesn't concern me much, especially if these pages were created in bad-faith. Michaelas10 (Talk) 09:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Weak support. My first encounters with BostonMA weren't in the best settings (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby), but I can see no real issues. I trust that this user knows what is expected of him, as an admin, regarding newbies and new pages, and I can't really say no, because he was nominated by Redvers, who (as far as I know) was my final Esperanza "admin coachee"... so, yeah, weak support. – Chacor 10:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. I find the objections raised unconvincing. >Radiant< 10:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Seems like a good contributor, and Redvers presents a very convincing nom. Problems in the objections section can be overcome with a bit of coaching (the fact they have been raised here should quickly rectfy them.) Plus, some "newbies" are not newbies at all -- many encountered on newpages patrol are bored schoolkids playing with their mates on a terminal at the other side of the IT room. The JPStalk to me 13:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. support --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support- per Good Editor who needs admin tools.--Natl1 15:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - I am a bit troubled by what seems to me to be nit-picking ("concerns") by some editors in this RfA. Wikipedia needs more admins. BostonMA has demonstrated his commitment to Wikipedia and would be even more valuable as an admin. John Broughton | Talk 15:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, sir. That was not "nit-picking". The evidence that has been produced was from his last 500 contributions. If I wanted to go on a "nit-picking" spree, I could have spent my whole day searching for his mistakes, which I did not. My objections have been rendered rather weak, by the sensible replies of the nominee; where he accepts his mistake(s) and assures that he would not commit them again. Also, saying that *I* as a user, never committed any mistakes, or bit any newbie for that matter, would be like saying that with flatulent orotundity. Cheers, --Nearly Headless Nick 09:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. These are some of the strangest oppose votes I have ever seen. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 19:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support This user has plenty of rep, he really needs to be an admin. Imageboy1 02:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Downright spurious :) - crz crztalk 20:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Very Strong Support - A great Wikipedian that contributes very well and is a very talented user. BostonMA does deserve the administrator title. --Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 20:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Decided on Support Good user, deserves tools. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail 23:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Bucketsofg 02:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Yes Jaranda wat's sup 02:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Strong Support a very good, respectable editor. Sure he's got a few flaws, but he's committed to Wikipedia's mission. Rama's arrow 03:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support I sued supported Ben Affleck BostonMA...aw, do I even need a reason? But seriously, folks, a great user and deserves the tools. –The Great Llamasign here 03:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support This is the most perfect candidate for an administrator I have seen in a long time. He is patient and hard-working. His user page is fantastic, designed to resolve disputes quickly and effectively. He also seems very modest, which is good for a Wikipedian. Freedom to share 11:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support I have had a very good impresion of this user--Striver - talk 11:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support: I think he has now earned sufficient experience to do well as an administrator. --Bhadani 13:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support: I see no reason that he will abuse the tools, nor abuse the communities trust. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 16:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support, with regrets: He certainly seems capable, and my head spinned when reading him nom (we don't need all those links, methinks). However, having experienced the culling blade of people who delete articles that have merit and could be improved, his answer to #6 worries me greatly. Articles that could use clean-up should be given a chance to be cleaned up. #After a more thorough look at this candidate, I withdraw my support and side with 'oppose'. Scratch that, it was all a misunderstanding. see below. Support it is Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 17:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Full Support, per nomination. The Blue Lion 19:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support- I'm not convinced he wouldn't make a good admin. JorcogaYell! 00:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support I have noticed him around but had no direct dealings. However having read this page through, and looked at the diffs linked to my the nominator, I am convinced. --SandyDancer 01:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. A knowledgeable, sensible and well-rounded editor. Most deserving. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Strong support - I would have been one of the first to support had I not been busy with RL. BostonMA is a great wikipedian would make a great admin. - Aksi_great (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. It's true that the answers to the questions are a bit weak, but I'm confident that he won't misuse admin tools. SuperMachine 15:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support FirefoxMan 18:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Great user that has shown he will not misuse the tools. Hello32020 18:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. A disproportionate amount of opposition has come from this user's lack of notifying creators of articles tagged as CSD. This is a good editor. -- Renesis (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support without hesitation. Anyone who wants to knock the guy for not notifying creators needs to spend a couple of hours at Special:Newpages. The term "firehose of crap" has been used. The first Oppose refers to an article which tells us that the Peru top 100 is the top 100 in Peru. In pretty much so many words. Failing to notify the creator that this peerless wisdom may not be pivotal to the building of a great encyclopaedia is not, in my view, a cardinal sin. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support I believe this candidate will not misuse the tools. Dionyseus 22:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Strong Support I found Boston to be neutral and very constuctive on contentious article, in which sometimes it becomes difficult to be neutral. TruthSpreaderreply 23:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - Impressed by answers to questions, even the pointless (IMO) one about education levels :). Just a note with regards to anyone concerned about Boston's double tagging of one or two pages - one of the earlier versions of NPWatcher didn't show recognition that it was working, and it is likely that the double tagging took place using one of these versions (I invite someone to check the changelog and version restrictions on the program if I'm wrong). Martinp23 00:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Weak Support. Great edits, great answers, Nearly Headless Nick does make a great point with his oppose, but I've seen far worse conduct before, and I'm finding NO evidence of biting at all, so that shouldn't even be an issue. --Wizardman 05:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I make a great point? Not notifying newbies about the articles which they created being tagged for speedy-deletion is not biting? Please clarify your "vote". Thanks. :) --Nearly Headless Nick 13:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's certainly ideal to tell article creators that its being tagged, yet I can understand that there are instances where there's no need (an example would by if a dynamic IP made an article about someone with the text "OMG HE DA BEST!1!!!1!") In that case it's not really needed. I don't like the lack of it, but I wouldn't call it "biting" in the actual sense. Rereading the oppose weakened my position on him, but if he can understand that he can't bite new users as an admin, he should be alright. --Wizardman 00:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. After reviewing this user's edits, I don't anticipate any admin abuse. That's all that really matters. AuburnPilottalk 06:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Borderline Support: BostonMA, at my instigation, has kindly explained the ArbCom situation and provided diffs which not only satisfy my concerns but which show attention to detail and proof the work Boston has been carrying out has prepared him for adminship, in fact, I'm now a little concerned that the situation has I believe needlessly ended up with ArbCom. I'm sorry for having chopped and changed votes a couple of times now but this is certainly one of the most unusual and difficult to call RfAs that I've come across. I still think this RfA should have waited until the ArbCom case was over as it's obviously affected support, but I'm now sufficently confident in Boston's ability to use the tools correctly not to have to Oppose. I also found myself thinking I would support a future RfA just a few weeks down the line, so I think opposing at this stage is perhaps over bureaucratic. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 00:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. Ghostbusters in NY 03:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. A good editor overall. Things are blown out of proportion here. --Bondego 11:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support nice guy. --hydkat 13:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - Nobody is perfect, but I feel this user has shown a willingness and thoughtfulness when it comes to responding to criticism. Sometimes how we respond under pressure is more important than the complete perfection of our histories. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Sorry for jinxing you - most of the times I have supported a candidate they have failed the RfA. I think Presidential elections in most countries are more leniant than Wikipedia Admin elections nowadays to the point where only Admins that have avoided all sorts of conflicts can hope to be elected. Oh well. Good luck to you. --Blacksun 14:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Regretfully, oppose. This user is civil, sincere and dedicated; however that is not a qualification for adminship. From what I have seen he comes out rather confrontational and from his last five hundred contributions – [59], I have seen that many of his edits have been automated; which is not wrong in itself, however I see cases of newbie biting, This page – [60] was marked with ((db-empty)) (twice?) within two minutes of its creation, and user failed to notify the creator of the article. Similar case here – [61]. In another case he failed to notify the creator again – [62], and tagged the page without trying to ascertain the notability of the person (by the means of a refined google search perhaps?). Also WP:BIO candidates are not speedy candidates. One more case of quick-((db)) tagging – [63] (including failure to notify creator again). I believe many of the pages he tagged might have been deleted, however not-notifying the creator of the page, specially when it is a newbie user is unacceptable. I was also surprised by the existence of this page – User talk:BostonMA/RegardingDBachmann – which is not an attack page per se, however this page was created on 22nd October 2006. Given that the concerned user was admonished by the Arbitration Committee for a particular comment he made, there was no further need to keep the discussion alive. I feel that this user holds few grudges and does not want to give them up especially when the situation has been dealt with. It simply serves no purpose other than fuelling the fire. Given the above facts which I have produced, I feel that this user will not be able to exercise admin discretion on deletion appropriately. Not admin material (at least not now). — Nearly Headless Nick
    Reply - If Dbachmann can get away with calling contributors "fascists" and rant about "Hindu gerontophilia" and not to mention the notoroius "shithole" comment (documented on bostonma's page), bostonma is definitely justified in exposing the racism being perpetrated.Bakaman 20:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The unorthodox behaviour of one admin doesn't justify identical behaviour of any other editor or administrator. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 20:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    BostonMA merely made an archive of discussions he had, and provided a forum for discussion. Dbachmann's behavior is not "unorthodox" it is inexcusable. BostonMa's behavior is unorthodox but it was done in the best interests of India related editors. If bostonma made racist remarks about Swiss people it would be identical behavior. I find no evidence going through boston's contribs that he holds any prejudices against swiss people, therefore comparing racism to documentation is like comparing apples to oranges.Bakaman 22:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hesitant oppose - Definitely a cool headed and dedicated user, but a few of the things Sir Nick pointed out concern me. (particularly with the speedy tagging) Could do with a good read up on the deletion policy, but not ready for the sysop buttons just yet in my humble opinion. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Back To Oppose - Allegations of stalking another user in the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood trouble me. They may be totally unfounded but I'd suggest withdrawing until this ArbCom case is closed. Additional information presented is troubling, answers to questions are quite poor and I can't sit on the sidelines and !vote neutral here. Another couple of months actually trying to fix stubs instead of tagging them for deletion and a couple of months of staying away from Arbitration cases would be most likely to change my mind. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 20:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear friend, if something is not proved against him then we should think him innocent. We should assume good faith. Should not we? Obviously he will be descoped (removed from admin post) if those allegation comes true but voting oppose based on just "allegation" is very wrong. He is involved in too many mediations and disputes. (WHICH IS GREAT). He is playing a very good rule in all those places and we should really appreciate it. Instead of ... --- ALM 17:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    if something is not proved against him then we should think him innocent - The only problem with this is that the ArbCom case is ongoing and no decision has been made. If ArbCom comes back and says there's no case to answer then I'll consider changing the way I have voted. I'm puzzelled as to how someone can be involved in too many mediations and disputes yet you think this is great. It's perfectly possible to be a great admin without having to piss off everybody else in the process. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 20:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Back to Oppose per earlier rationale plus Beit Or below. Ouch! - crz crztalk 20:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Withdraw per answer and out of above-average respect for nominators and nominee. - crz crztalk 00:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose: WP:BITE. I have seen and liked your work, and I think you're a reasonable person. Further, I love and respect your nominators. As a matter of fact, I am Samir's sockpuppet. But I cannot condone pronounced instances of BITE. Is it that trigger-finger software that's doing you in? (I am starting to dislike it immensely and have recently posted on WP:AN about it, with little result.) I don't know. The dirty secret is, I think you would make a very good sysop, but I just must oppose for diffs like this one, only three days ago. I am sorry. - crz crztalk 13:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong oppose per questions 4 and 6. I can't trust this user with the deletion tools. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point out what you found objectionable about his answers? The answers seem in line with policy to me. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly. Question four, regarding WP:SNOW in particular, BMA states "that it is at times appropriate to cut off discussion when that discussion may exacerbate a conflict rather than lead toward resolution." I cannot agree with that, even with the added caveats. It implies that he feels that discussion, even if it results in conflict and friction, can be disruptive, which is a problem. Question six shows a couple problems. BMA states that "CSD:G11 permits articles to be deleted even if the article could be rewritten in an encyclopedic way." In fact, CSD G11's requirement seeks a "fundamental rewrite" as the end point. Certainly, an article that reads spammy can be handled with editing out POV statements, leaving the meat of the article intact. He goes on, saying that "[p]erhaps I could be persuaded outright deletion is a better approach than stubbification." If this is the attitude, I'd prefer him not to be near CSD at all, let alone have the tools to execute the situation. If an admin cannot take the time to judge the overall worth of an article's existence via any standards, I don't trust them to use the tools properly in that area. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironically, Jeff, you seem to be opposing due to the candidate's discomfort with applying a policy that has been controversial. Would you have supported had the nominee rejected this policy outright instead of waffling?--Kchase T 17:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A person has not had to accept or reject the policy in order for me to approve of them (or not oppose) in the past. If only one of these were an issue, I may not have opposed, but this is three distinct situations that I simply cannot ignore. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. The answer to question 6 is a bit troubling; speedy deletion is supposed to be a process for something that is certain not to pass an AfD, so if an article just needs cleanup, it wasn't a speedy candidate. However, that doesn't really make an oppose. The bigger problem is that you seem to have no qualifications outside of vandal fighting and NP patrolling (meaning you don't have enough XfD). Vandal fighting can not be your sole qualification. I'm not trusting you with powers only to fight vandals, I'm also trusting you with powers to block users for other reasons, to close deletion discussions, and to protect pages from edit wars. Thus, I have to trust you with those tools, and I don't see a reason why I should. I've lost count of how many times I've said that in recent RFAs. -Amarkov blahedits 16:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    When I noticed such a perennial point at AfD, I started an essay. It may be time for yours.--Kchase T 17:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - per WP:BITE concerns - if something isn't comnplete junk, then you really should notify the creator, as they could easily become a productive editor of better articles - and also lack of quality articles. Moreschi Deletion! 20:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose because the ArbComm case is currently active. GRBerry 00:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Either you think he committed bad acts (in which case tell us which) or he didn't. But to oppose based simply on the existence of the case? - crz crztalk 00:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Crzrussian, BostonMA seems to be secondary character in this story, and from what I saw quite civil and level-headed. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 01:25Z
  7. Oppose Answer to question 1 shows lack of enthusiasm for becoming an admin. Why give the mop to someone who doesn't think they need it? I also question the veracity of the answers to questions 7 and 8. If someone has written a master's thesis, they would be able to demonstrate evaluation of reliable sources outside of Wikipedia. —Malber (talk • contribs) 03:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Really, Malber, you think the candidate is lying about having a Master's degree?!--Kchase T 03:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I don't see any reason to accuse him of lying. Rarely does a master's student sit on a Program Committee or otherwise directly involved with academic peer review, even in the U.S. In good faith on both parties, I assume there has been mis-communication. BostonMA is saying he has no experience acting in an official capacity, and Malber construed this as no experience at all. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 02:32Z
    Moreover, I can think of at least one individual who earned a master's degree for the fulfillment of which the writing of a dissertation was, I believe, required but who is nevertheless surely incapable of evaluating the reliability of sources prior to his acting qua admin. Joe 06:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak oppose - Seems like a great contributor, the problems detailed in the first two oppose votes concern me a lot. savid@n 04:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. With regret, not comfortable with the concerns raised by various editors as above. - Mailer Diablo 10:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per Badlydrawnjeff. The candidate's understanding of WP:IAR and speedy deletion criteria is woefully inadequate. Furthermore, I cannot but point out his extremely hostile questioning of Avi regarding some content issues during the ArbCom elections. Questions to ArbCom candidates is not a proper place to bring up your content dispute. Beit Or 08:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose without prejudice -- Certainly seems like a good editor; however, I'm concerned that this admin candidate is currently an involved party in an ArbCom case, yet is the only one who has not given a statement in the week since it was opened. His requests for sweeping checkuser against 8 to 10 accounts (placed on both the ArbCom's Workshop page and Evidence page), without presenting solid justification, also strikes me as excessive. I'd suggest trying again after the ArbCom case is concluded.--LeflymanTalk 01:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: I'm also disappointed that BostonMA's edit summary usage shows only 92% summaries for last 150 major edits-- one expects long-term editors, particularly those vying for adminship, to nearly always include summaries on major edits. --LeflymanTalk 01:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Disappointed over 92% edit summaries? That's just a bit ridiculous. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 02:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded, that's quite ridiculous indeed. Most people using edit summaries as a criteria look for an acceptable amount (80% or so), but to say 92% is not enough... – Chacor 02:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, please consider being a bit more civil in responding to those you disagree with. Holding as standard that the edit summary be filled in is hardly "ridiculous". Help:Edit summary states it explicitly: "Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline. Even a short summary is better than no summary." And, as pointed out at the WP:GRFA#What_RfA_contributors_look_for: "Edit summaries. Constructive and frequent use of edit summaries is a quality some RfA contributors want to see. Some expect use of edit summaries to approach 100% of the time." I consider 95% to be just acceptable for major summaries; below that, an editor's attention to details becomes questionable. --LeflymanTalk 02:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am copying my comment from below here again. See the point is that this user might never be out from mediation and arbitrations because he is a dispute resolve and always take initiative to resolve disputes. For example in Muhammad article we had long standing pictures dispute and even no Muslim had taken it to Mediation but he did (see here). Me and BostanMA are both still on different side of this Muhammad picture dispute (and have very different opinions) but I appreciate his sincerity, calmness, civility and dispute resolving ability. These qualities to fight for what is right and resolving disputes are missing in many administrator around. For example I ask for help from some admins and they said that they do not want to be part of it (a dispute), even though they edit that article in question. I do not like those admin and now we have chance to have a totally different person as admin. Hence he might always be part of mediation and arbitration. Not because there is something wrong with him but because he is good person. Now, you want him to change himself and stop contributing in this excellent way and then apply for adminship. You want him to be like other yacky admin and then apply. I am sorry but I do not feel that good reason because he cannot accomplish this without leaving his great habit of dispute-resolving. If he changed his that habit then you might give him support but I will then vote for oppose. Please try to understand him better. Thank you :) --- ALM 15:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Too many concerns for comfort raised in the Oppose and Neutral columns. Singopo 15:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per all of the above. Seems to have been involved in a number of disputes with established editors to the point where he admits that he can no longer assume good faith [64]. Also while the lack of article editing is bad, the habitual addition of unsourced material to articles is far worse [65], [66], [67]. Needs more familiarity with core policies and broader experience before promotion. --JJay 15:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The correct URL for the first link you provide is [68]; the URL you gave was affected by an article move, and BostonMA corrected in when asked about it on his talk page. [69] John Broughton | Talk 23:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea what you are talking about. His exact words in the link I provided were: I can no longer assume good faith on your part...He did not redact that comment. Admins have to deal with a very broad range of users. They need to be able to assume good faith in most every situation (except vandalism, etc.). That is not opinion, it is policy. He made that comment in the context of a content dispute with an established user. That is just wrong and indicates to me potential serious problems later on with administrative authority. --JJay 23:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose I wasn't going above neutral per fairly undistinguished record in main and WP space (other than checkuser) and fuzzy understanding of policies, but JJay's finds put me in the oppose column. No problems I see that prevent a future nomination. ~ trialsanderrors 20:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per Beit Or above and others. Amoruso 22:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per JJay et. al. The user seemed unable to deal in good faith, regardless of attempts as seen here [70]. -- Avi 23:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per JJay. I cannot see how the edit BostonMA refered to in that edit would proclude assuming good faith in future. The addition of unsourced material is also a concern and I share the reservations to answers to question expressed by badlydrawnjeff. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 23:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per Singopo. --tickle me 00:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per the above, needs a better familiarity with core policies. Silensor 00:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. I stayed away from this RfA until I could make a formidable decision here, but the evidence provided in the opposes is quite destructive. I have no option but to oppose your RfA, Boston. Sorry. Nishkid64 02:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose as per Nearly Headless Nick. Also I can't say the answers to questions 4&6 rocked my world --I'll bring the food 05:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per many of the above. Inadequate grasp of policies and other concerns raised here are troubling. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 06:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose in the strongest way possible. User seems to think speedy deletion is the solution to all of lifes problems... rather than cleaning up perfectly verifiable information.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 12:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To Alkivar and all others using #6 as grounds to oppose: I thought I would point out, as Boston has tried to above, that in his answer to No. 6 he says that he opposes deleting articles that need work: As a normal editor, [I] have tended to prefer removing spam and stubbification to outright deletion for bad articles about encyclopedic subjects. As an admin, I think I would tend to avoid deleting such articles. However, I would certainly respect the opinions and actions of admins who choose to delete any article that qualifies for speedy deletion. Perhaps I could be persuaded outright deletion is a better approach than stubbification. However, this is my opinion at the moment.
    I am not confused and this has absolutely nothing to do with my opposition vote.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems we all got a little confuddled as to that point. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 14:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose I'm sorry but I can't support after seeing JJay's comments and your answer to question 6, TewfikTalk 18:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose per Beit Or's above comments. -- Karl Meier 20:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose per JJay et al. Jayjg (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose per JJay. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose firstly for weak mainspace contributions (less than 2K edits mostly done by semi-automatic tools, also the answers to q2). Secondly, one of the main requirenets of an admin is to forgive all editorial and personal conflicts with productive users, believe in the good faith and judge editors by his or her strengths not weaknesses. The page on DrBachman and the conflict with Avi shows that it is not the case yet. Alex Bakharev 12:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose, specifically over the DBachmann affair and other concerns highlighted by Nearly Headless Nick. The user is too combative for adminship in my opinion. Preemptively, I kindly request Bakaman not to add any threaded comments below my !vote. Please conduct discussion on the talkpage. Bishonen | talk 14:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  30. Oppose per JJay.--Aldux 15:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. <inserting>INCREDIBLY Strong</inserting> Oppose per JJay and Alkivar. Nothing in the arguments I've seen in favor of adminship comes close to swaying me... From his contribs, BostonMA seems to be a productive editor, something which adminship is not going to improve, nor is denial of adminship likely to hinder. The only tool that might help is "rollback", and some of the above troubling diffs indicate that in this case, it would be like giving matches to a closet pyromaniac. I can only hope that if this RfA ultimately fails, that that failure will not negatively impact BostonMA's editing, and that if it ultimately succeeds, that he will consider seriously the sometimes harsh criticism leveled against him here in the process. Tomertalk 22:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The response to Question#11 should have been practically instantaneous, even given the first 10 words of the question, without even bothering to go look at what the AfD was about. AfDs created in userspace are ANATHEMA to the proper functioning of WP. Instead BostonMA responds with an equivocacious paragraph that says essentially nothing of importance. This bespeaks wishywashiness at best, and pandering at worst. Completely unacceptable. Take a stance and stand by it. Backpedal if necessary, but admins need backbones, even when they're facing the wrong direction. TIA. Tomertalk 07:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, the fact that Q11 refered to an "AfD" in userspace was I think because it was meant as a sample. Regarding my "wishywashy" answer, my closing such an AfD would not settle anything. Certain actions require not only backbone, but a great deal of respect and authority. --BostonMA talk 13:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose per JJay and Nearly Headless Nick. Terence Ong 05:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose. — CharlotteWebb 14:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose per JJay and others. Maybe try again in a few months, see if behavior changes. Crum375 17:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose. Concerns raised by various people above point to a need for more experience, particularly in reliably handling difficult situations in accordance with policy. -- SCZenz 18:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose per the confused, oft-revised answer to Question 6, as well as other concerns. More experience will help allay objections to this mostly-wonderful candidate. Xoloz 19:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose per lack of significant mainspace work. One of the main goals of adminship (if not the main one) is to provide a comfortable environment to Wikipedia writers. That requires being in touch, that requires significant involvement in content writing. --Irpen 05:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Weak oppose Xoloz has it, I think, quite right. I must admit that, the fact of RfA's not being a vote notwithstanding, I considered supporting in view of my disagreeing rather strongly with some of the opposes propounded (à la, if less harshly, Carnildo here), but I'm not at all sure that I can conclude with any reasonable degree of certainty that the net effect on the project of our sysopping Boston should be positive, such that, consistent with my guidelines, I must oppose; I join, though, in the comments of Tshilo supra and Grutness infra and imagine that, should this RfA succeed, Boston will be especially circumspect in certain of his actions. Joe 06:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral, had several indirect conflicts with him such as at this RFC. Nearly Headless Nick has good points as well which I agree. Leaning to support, but I shall see how this goes. Terence Ong 10:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Changing to oppose. Terence Ong 05:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Neutral I will go towards neutral on this one due to the tagging without issuing a warning about why the action was required on the new editor's Talk page. I don't think that this is a reason for an outright oppose from me because a) I have done the same thing myself in the past and been pulled up on it too, and b) Redvers correctly points out that BostonMA is capable of learning from their mistakes. If this was in the distant past then I would have no concerns but it only happened on December 25.(aeropagitica) 12:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Leaning to support, but the candidate's comments on WP:IAR gave me pause: New users may be intimidated. We don't want to discourage new users from doing things that seem right. WP:IAR gives new users a degree of leeway to make mistakes without being bitten. That's a new one on me - surely, BostonMA means WP:BITE, not that new users are given a free pass? Isn't it more important to encourage new users to learn the rules and norms? Or what does he mean here? (and isn't WP:SNOW an essay about using policy WP:IAR in a particular way, and not just a standalone essay?) Bwithh 16:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Allegedly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh... not that I'm a big fan of WP:IAR either... Bwithh 17:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral (changed from oppose above). I believe that during an ArbComm case is not the right time to have an RfA. However, reading some of the mediation pages and the ArbComm pages to date much more fully, I don't see any serious allegations about BostonMA's behavior. Given the ease (and scarce evidence) with which others have been accused of poor behavior, I'm willing to believe for now that he was not a primary disputant. GRBerry 01:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral exactly per GRBerry. The ArbCom case will likely not have any bearing on BostonMA but I would have preferred this RfA to have started after the ArbCom case was closed. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 02:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For User:Heligoland and GRBerry: See the point is that this user might never be out from mediation and arbitrations because he is a dispute resolve and always take initiative to resolve disputes. For example in Muhammad article we had long standing pictures dispute and even no Muslim had taken it to Mediation but he did (see here). Me and BostanMA are both still on different side of this Muhammad picture dispute (and have very different opinions) but I appreciate his sincerity, calmness, civility and dispute resolving ability. These qualities to fight for what is right and resolving disputes are missing in many administrator around. For example I ask for help from some admins and they said that they do not want to be part of it (a dispute), even though they edit that article in question. I do not like those admin and now we have chance to have a totally different person as admin. Hence he might always be part of mediation and arbitration. Not because there is something wrong with him but because he is good person. Now, you want him to change himself and stop contributing in this excellent way and then apply for adminship. You want him to be like other yacky admin and then apply. I am sorry but I do not feel that good reason because he cannot accomplish this without leaving his great habit of dispute-resolving. If he changed his that habit then you might give him support but I will then vote for oppose. Please try to understand him better. Thank you :) --- ALM 17:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I also disgree with BostonMA in many areas. But I respect the way he respects the view of others. An admin must be constantly involved with controversial stuff. His involvment in an ArbCom case is hardly relevent, if any inpropriety is found it will be well within the powers of ArbCom to de-admin him. However, since his is only a secondary role in this case I am sure he will come out smelling like roses. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I was leaning toward at least a weak support, partly as a counterweight to this meme going around that quick speedy-tagging of obviously deficient articles is newbie-biting. However, recent events have finally convinced me that, in the absence of extraordinary contributions in another realm, admins should have significant experience in article writing. Opabinia regalis 08:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral- I am a bit concerned about the tendency to speedy tag too quickly (and yes, I've been guilty of this in the past, too). A little more XfD could be good, too, although it's not the main reason I'm hesitant to support. Heimstern Läufer 02:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral-per GRBerry. --teh tennisman 14:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral per the concerns raised in the Oppose section so far. Lethaniol 14:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral - obviously a useful editor but equally obviously some valid concerns raised by those opposing this nomination --Herby talk thyme 10:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral. Great editor, but very recent speedy-tagging of articles that could have been tagged with maintenance templates raises concerns. I hope I'll be supporting in the next RfA. utcursch | talk 09:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral - Close to support as a good contributor, but I do not approve of speedying articles too fast after their creation (unless they are obviously going to be a CSD, e.g. the title is obviously nonsense), as time is needed for editors to expand a new page. Insanephantom 13:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral, close to support. Would love to support - BostonMA is a very fine and very friendly editor, but I too have a few concerns about some of the issues raised such as the speedying. Grutness...wha? 00:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category