Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Boson

Boson

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (172/5/4); Scheduled to end 20:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination

Boson (talk · contribs) – I was looking through the list of users who might want to be an admin and Boson stuck out. Last year, two users suggested nominating them as an admin (User talk:Boson/Archive 4#RFA Nomination and User talk:Boson/Archive 4#Potential admin). They've edited with no breaks in activity since 2006, with 100% edit summaries, no blocks, 15,000 edits, and just over 1/2 their edits are to article space. Their edits in the area of the European Union are extensive. They make detailed and reasoned contributions to AfD and to featured article reviews. They were called a "miracle of diplomacy". We need more admins and this mix of experience, content development and diplomacy is the right skill set. Fences&Windows 21:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you for your nomination! I accept.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Mainly AIV, RPP, and AfD, I think, wherever I notice a backlog, or urgent need for action that I think I can and should take care of. I don't think a decision to block, protect, or delete should be taken lightly, so I would probably take action in only a few of the cases that I look at. I would also be more active at places like ANI, since I regard that as part of the "job description".

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Most of my activity on Wikipedia has involved improving existing articles and, especially, fixing problems, such as repairing vandalism, fixing or providing citations, copy-editing and so on. This has also included retranslating translated articles that needed it. So there are no articles that I am entirely happy with and that I would regard as demonstrating my contributions alone. Articles that I have made major contributions to include

• Walter Hallstein, which – before I and others improved it – looked like this
• Singular they
• St. Mary's Church, Lübeck, a somewhat challenging retranslation from the German. It previously looked like this (though I rather liked "the prestigious spatial demands of the self-conscious, commercially motivated inhabitants were no longer satisfied").
• Expropriation of the Princes in the Weimar Republic, a retranslation from the German after it was nominated in a competition for the worst Wikipedia page at the Village Pump and nominated for deletion, when it looked something like this.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have had disagreements with other editors, and I have occasionally been mildly annoyed or frustrated when confronted with long circular arguments coupled with IDHT behaviour and sockpuppetry, but I can't really say they caused me stress. With experience, I have learned to better assess when my time would be more valuably employed elsewhere, and when it is more sensible to interrupt a discussion earlier rather than later. In general, I continue to be surprised at the level of cooperation and good will.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional questions from BU Rob13

4. Could you provide at least one specific example of past conflict that you've been in, in the sense of question 3 above?

A: The main dispute that comes to mind is about when to specify metric measurements with imperial measurements in parentheses and when to reverse the order (in non-scientific articles related to the UK). The whole dispute (or series off disputes) is difficult to follow because it extended over several years and involved numerous other pages as well as Metrication in the United Kingdom and WP:MOSNUM. More than one editor involved was banned or indeffed. The topic is now subject to discretionary sanctions but remains a sore that erupts every now and again (though views may differ on how to apportion the blame). I think the whole issue has been somewhat "traumatic" for most of the participants. --Boson (talk) 05:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

5. Are you open to working on the extensive administrative backlogs that exist on the encyclopedia, or are you more interested at the moment in working on administrative issues as you come across them or at the main noticeboards? To name just a few backlogs that could use some attention, we've got WP:FFD, Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions, and WP:CFD. There are plenty others if one looks for them, of course.

A: Yes, I would be quite open to working on backlogs. I don't see myself working on WP:FFD but Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions, and WP:CFD sound quite feasible. --Boson (talk) 05:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

PS: As regards noticeboards, I already follow AN and ANI and some similar venues (and have done for a long time); I at least glance through the discussions and form a tentative opinion on many issues. As a non-admin, I usually make a deliberate choice not to voice that opinion – unless I have something unique to add to the discussion. Even then, I observe the advice at WP:AFD: "... consider not participating if ... you agree with the consensus that has already been formed." As an admin, I would feel obliged to express my opinion more often, since I would regard that as part of the job I had been appointed to do. --Boson (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Additional questions from Class455

6. You see the following usernames around and at UAA. What do you do? (Asking this again as when I asked if at the last RfA, the candidate withdrew, so wasn't answered in time)

• DavidSmith21
• Profile101 is back
• Emirates A380
• RMT Union
• MusicAnimal
• Ronaldo7
• Trump Donald
• Inspiring Futures
• Thameslink and Great Northern

A:

Well, at the moment – and bearing in mind that none of those names look as if they have the potential to break Wikipedia in the immediate future – I would probably put them on my watchlist and observe what admins with more experience at UAA and/or RFCN did. But I take your question to include: what concerns would I have, and what actions might be appropriate? In all cases, I would look at the user page, user talk page, and contributions to see whether the name was actually being used and whether the pages contained promotional material, for instance. If the account is inactive and the user page and user talk page contained nothing untoward, no further action on my part would be necessary.

• DavidSmith21: This could be misleading if the user's real name is not David Smith. I would see what it says on the user page and possibly talk to the user, explaining username policy. However, since the name is so common, I would want further evidence before treating it as impersonation.
• Profile101 is back: looks like it could be a sockpuppet of a blocked user, so I would look to see if there is further evidence of that.
• Emirates A380: I suppose this is potentially promotional, but not obviously so. Perhaps something for RFCN, but I don't think I would take any action, personally, based on the username alone.
• RMT Union: This could give the impression that edits are being made by or on behalf of an organization, and of being a shared account, so I would first talk to the user, possibly using {{uw-coi-username}}. The user could be blocked (WP:ISU, WP:ORGNAME).
• MusicAnimal: I see nothing that I would feel competent to take action on without more evidence. The only potential problem I see is that there is an administrator named MusikAnimal (with various redirects), so there is potential for impersonation. I might ping MusikAnimal to ask about any problems.
• Ronaldo7: Could be a fan or a person with the given name Ronaldo but, in my opinion, it cannot be seen as impersonation or promotion, so no action.
• Trump Donald: Without aggravating circumstances, I don't think this could be seen as impersonation, but it could be a disruptive political slogan, so I would see if there were any evidence of not being here to write an encyclopedia. I wouldn't treat it as an obvious violation of username policy, so I would probably take no drastic action, personally, though it might be a candidate for RFCN.
• Inspiring Futures: This is the name of an organization so it could be promotional or imply a shared account. However, it is not obvious, so, without additional evidence, I think it would be a matter for RFCN rather than UAA.
• Thameslink and Great Northern: Basically the same as RMT Union, but strictly speaking not an organization. However, it looks promotional, so it could potentially be blocked, though I would leave it to someone with more experience. The user could be a fan rather than representing the organization behind the brands. Possibly a case for WP:RFCN.

--Boson (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Reyk

7. Under what circumstances is it acceptable to block someone for refusing to answer a question on their talk page?

A: At the moment, I can't think of a scenario where it would be appropriate to block someone just for refusing to answer a question on their talk page. I suppose there could be situations where a refusal to answer a reasonable question could be seen as disruptive or would lead an administrator to make assumptions that would lead to a block for another reason. Are you thinking of something specific? --Boson (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Fastily

8. Please describe a hypothetical scenario where you would find it appropriate to invoke Wikipedia:Ignore all rules from an administrative perspective.

A: I assume that "from an administrative perspective" applies to the verb "describe", and is not intended to mean invocation of WP:IAR in an administrative context. As I see it WP:IAR is primarily intended for situations that were not foreseeable, so I'm not sure if it is very efficient to try and think up detailed hypothetical scenarios in advance. In more general terms, a hypothetical scenario would be one where common sense makes it clear that a literal interpretation of the rules, as formulated, would damage the encyclopedia, for instance because the rules did not envisage such a situation occurring. Perhaps you are thinking of something more specific. --Boson (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

PS: If the question is intended to refer to administrative actions, "ignore all rules" might be used by some in connection, for instance, with administrators using their discretion to give precedence to important principles (e.g. some BLP concerns) over procedural considerations. I would regard this as appropriate in some circumstances but I am not keen on calling it an invocation of WP:IAR, though this may be a personal semantic quibble. --Boson (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

PPS: In the light of later comments, I will add to my answer. I am now assuming that the thrust of the question is my attitude toward the scope of adminstrators' discretion, rather than, say, editors' reliance on IAR to justify violation of guidelines.

WP:IAR states "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it".

However, the rule may be used in a slightly different way, more in the sense of "If it's obviously the right thing to do, based on the core principles of Wikipedia and other overriding principles, then do it. That does, of course have similar risks of subjective interpretation to "I know it when I see it".

The original author of the rule may have meant something very different.

Perhaps this is the sort of example the questioner was thinking of:

(1) The newly-created biography of a marginally notable living person will, by its very existence, cause undeserved, immediate, and existential real-world problems for the subject (e.g. torture and death). Though the sourcing is not cast iron, it would normally be accepted as reliable, and the criteria for speedy deletion are not met. On balance, I think it would be appropriate for someone to delete the article, even if that meant invoking WP:IAR.

Beyond that, if the question is "Can I actually describe the details of a situation where I would, as a new admin, explicitly invoke WP:IAR to justify an action I was about to take, the answer is "no" (but I would know one if I saw it).

--Boson (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from UNSC Luke 1021

9. In my opinion, the most important non-mainspace content on WikiPedia is the numerous WikiProjects. What WikiProjects are you an active member of, and how will you work to help smaller WikiProjects, with a lot to offer, get noticed and grow in size? This counts as both of my questions for the RfA.

A: I do think that (some) WikiProjects are important. I am a member of WikiProject Germany and WikiProject European Union. The projects are no longer very active, but I think they still serve a useful purpose, as long as the project's members think of themselves as members. For me the main purpose is to have a group of editors who feel a common sense of responsibility for a group of articles. The project "space" itself can help when some sort of system is needed that is larger than the individual article, for instance when attempting to get some consistent set of naming conventions, categories and the like, or when assessing the quality of articles and seeing where more work is needed. This may be more relevant to projects like WikiProject Germany where uniform translation of terms for institutions, settlements, etc. can be an issue. I don't think I can help in developing other projects – I would be happy if I were able to devote sufficient attention to the projects I am a member of (and occasionally find time to eat and sleep!) Everything is a matter of priorities. [changed]--Boson (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from RileyBugz

10. How would you deal with an erroneous edit made by a new editor?

A: Since you use the word "erroneous", I assume you are not talking about actions as an administrator to deal with inappropriate conduct, but are referring to edits that are in good faith, though obviously incorrect. It very much depends on the nature of the erroneous edit, but my guiding principles would be to (1) protect the integrity of the encyclopedia, (2) treat the editor with kindness and patience (or at least civility), and (3) try to put myself in the position of the new editor. So the most obvious thing is to correct the error, with a meaningful edit summary (though in the case of a minor but embarrassing mistake I might consider informing the user and letting them fix it themself). Sometimes that is all that is needed. I would probably check to see if the new editor had already been welcomed, and if appropriate provide some links that would help him or her avoid similar errors in future. Sometimes, for instance where the user is having problems formatting citations, I might add a few extra words of encouragement and offer to help with future problems. --Boson (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Mr rnddude

11. You specify RfPP as an area in which you'd like to work in, so my question is with regards to that. I recently had a discussion with two other admins regarding the use of extended confirmed protection. The discussion was about whether ECP protection can be used in cases where the page has not previously been semi-protected. I was informed by one of the admins that a sysop order required semi-protect to be used first and only if that fails to curb the disruption may ECP be used. As I am not a sysop I am not privy to those details so I can't afford you any additional information beyond that. That said, I proposed them a scenario, which I will repeat in abridged format here.

Two users are engaged in a slow-burning edit war over article content at some random low traffic volume article. They are both auto-confirmed only (say 300 edits 10 days experience) and are both equally culpable in the edit-war. DR has been attempted and failed to achieve any resolution. Both editors refuse to use the article talk page and all discussion between them is in the edit-summaries. One of the two editors comes to RFPP and requests ECP to be placed on the article in question. The article has no previous protection. What protection if any do you place on the article? or do you take some other third action in response? and why?

A:

To start with, this appears to be a difficult or unusual case, because previous semi-protection is a prerequisite but would have no immediate useful purpose (since the "offenders" are autoconfirmed), so I would leave it to someone with more experience to respond to the request. I presume the "sysop order" is an indirect reference to Wikipedia:Protection policy:

• "Extended confirmed protection, also known as 30/500 protection prevents editing by users without 30 days tenure and 500 edits on the English Wikipedia. It is applied to combat any form of disruption where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective. It should not be applied as a protection level of first resort. [emphasis added]

Having said that, I think an admin needs to decide whether to take action in relation to the article or the edit-warring editors. The following potential options should be considered (and possibly some of them [amended --19:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)] rejected ):

• Semi-protection (which serves no immediate useful purpose), followed later by temporary EC protection (when semi-protection proves "ineffective").
• (Temporary PC2 protection might be a future possibility, but is not currently an option.)
• Immediate temporary full protection.
• Warn the editors ("Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring") and potentially follow up with a short block (depending on the editor's behaviour).

If I were (hypothetically) to respond to the request (declining ECP on grounds of policy), I would ask a more experienced admin about the following possible escalation (depending on the actual level of disruption, which is not very clear from the question):

• warn the editors
• if edit-warring continues without discussion at the talk page, apply short-term full protection
• if disruptive conduct continues when protection is lifted, consider a short block (depending on the editor's behaviour)

--Boson (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from SSTflyer

12. How would you have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alt-right and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song) if you were the closer of both discussions at the time they were closed?

A: This looks like one of those questions where I should, perhaps, be more careful to distinguish "What would be an ideal action?" or "What do I think an experienced admin should do?", what special considerations apply, and "What would I do as a new admin?"

• Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song): I agree with the result (as an interpretation of consensus).
• Alt-right: I agree with the result (as an interpretation of consensus), and, though I might well have worded it differently, I broadly agree with the summary of consensus.

In both cases, as a new admin, I wouldn't be the closer: I think the close should be left to an experienced admin, since there are potentially controversial reasons for ignoring or giving less weight to some of the votes (off-site canvassing, opinions not obviously founded in policy, including the possibility of reaching a decision that is expected to be of very limited duration).--Boson (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Ottawahitech

13. Many editors complain they are hounded by others on Wikipedia. What can they do about it?

A: In "descending order":

If it is more serious than "ordinary" hounding, especially if real-world harassment may be involved, they can contact ARBCOM. This also applies if confidential information, outing, or private e-mails, etc. are involved. If it is serious harassment but does not need to be dealt with confidentially, it can be taken to ANI. They should be aware that accusations of hounding without evidence may be interpreted by others as an attack, so before taking it to ANI they should assemble a list of diffs, if necessary using the other user's contribution log and/or other tools. They should avoid discussing the issue on article talk pages and the like.

Assuming the more "normal" case, where one user appears to be following another around in an annoying manner, but there are no personal attacks, depending on the exact nature of the problem, they could take it to the "offending" user's talk page, preferably in the form of a courteous enquiry, rather than an accusation.

Perhaps as important as what they can do about it is the question what they should do about it. So before doing anything, they should consider if it is really hounding. They should ask themselves: Does the other user have similar interests and therefore tend to edit the same articles? Could it appear that I had tried to "damage" Wikipedia in some way, for instance by adding incorrect information, causing the other user to check my contributions to see what else I may have "damaged". I normally do this with obvious vandalism, and an edit may have looked like vandalism to the other user. Even if the other user is at fault, consider if they may be acting "in revenge". If the contribution logs (or other tools) show, for instance, that it all started after they reverted one of the other user's edits, they can try to address that at their talk page.

For more serious harassment, of course, there are other resources to which the user could be directed. That also applies to content disputes where there may also be an element of (apparent) hounding.

Boson (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Hmlarson

14. Adding to Ottawahitech's question - overall tolerance for abusive language and troll-like behaviour from participants is frequently named as a factor for low participation rates by women, people of color, and LGBT people. 1 What are your general thoughts on this issue and what do you think an editor with admin rights should do when harassment has occurred?

A: My advice to someone who felt that they were being subjected to harassment or personal attacks in the form of verbal or other abuse would be similar in some aspects to my advice on hounding, e.g. ARBCOM for serious, confidential cases etc. This may be more likely in the case of harassment involving racial or sexual issues etc., and it is more likely that Wikipedia:How to deal with harassment would be of use. My advice about gathering diffs and not making accusations without evidence also applies. I would also be careful to avoid exaggeration or drama, and take care not to conflate different types of unacceptable behaviour. I would always recommend being respectful, even in the face of unacceptable behaviour (Do unto others as you would be done unto.) – though this may not be as easy as it sounds. Advice about considering how their actions, or chance, may have contributed to the perceived problems is very much less likely to apply and could easily be misunderstood in this context.

What should an editor with admin rights do about it is a much more difficult question.

As you will have gathered from my other answers: as a new admin, I would tread very cautiously, and for the immediate future, I would not envisage my using the tools in cases of harassment, but there might be a situation where no older and wiser admin is available (though one of those conditions is more likely than the other).

Having said that: in the case of indisputable, persistent harassment including personal attacks it is reasonably clear: it needs to be stopped quickly. How quickly sanctions are escalated. depends on the circumstances. Seriously abusive harassment of the sort mentioned in the article you referenced needs to be stopped and removed immediately: rape threats, for instance, and people who issue them, have no place whatsoever on Wikipedia. The same goes for racist and homophobic abuse, for instance. What is important is the fact and the perception that it will not be tolerated.

When it gets down to situations that are more about inappropriate and sometimes intimidating language, it's a bit more complicated. Collaborative behaviour and a congenial environment are important, and language can disturb or contribute to that, but, in concrete terms, I just don't know what is the best course with the least risk of making things worse. I have some ideas, and I have spent some time trying to formulate something sensible, but I have given up for now. On a positive note, I do think the Wikipedia environment is a lot better than many other places. --Boson (talk) 04:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• Links for Boson: Boson (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Boson can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Support

1. Support What a candidate! Over 50% of their edits have been either creating, improving or reverting in the article space which on it's own is impressive enough - pair that with a strong, demonstrated knowledge of policy and a calm and collected civility and we've got someone who will greatly benefit the corp -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
2. Support The 50% threshold doesn't mean as much to me as the fact that Boson seems to be a levelheaded, productive editor and seems to work well with others. Wikipedia isn't a one size fits all place, but Boson seems to be a benefit to it no matter how he fits. South Nashua (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
3. Support. Appears to have the makings of a great administrator. Cbl62 (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
4. Support The article contributions are impressive, but mostly supporting because he has demonstrated himself to be a calm and rational editor over a long period of time. Natureium (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Nothing stands out as bad. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
6. Support precious German history and institutions, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
7. Support, why not? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

   I don't want to challenge your vote, but can you elaborate on 'why not'? It's a somewhat vague answer and you run the risk of having your vote discounted. Thanks! UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts 15:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

   @UNSC Luke 1021: See WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

8. Support seems qualified. Long term contributor, no issues, enough content contributed to satisfy me. I don't particularly think an admin candidate needs a given number of AIVs or such.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

   @Wehwalt: To be clear, I wouldn't be concerned about "a particular number of AIV" reports if not for the fact that the candidate wants to work at AIV. I kind of expect some record there if you're going to immediately jump into that area, just as I would expect a portfolio of past works before hiring a professional photographer or a history of good patient care before putting a doctor in charge of an entire department in a hospital. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

   Thank you for clarifying that for me.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

9. Support would make a fine admin. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
10. Support. Clear net positive with the tools, and we need more admins. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
11. Support and my word, the expectation inflation is getting out of hand. The candidate will be fine, better than fine probably, they've got a far more nuanced understanding of the project than robotic filing of reports at AIV, XfD, ANI etc would ever generate. They've got, as far as I can tell, clue. You don't need tens of thousands of edits to prove that. Nick (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
12. Support. Adminship is WP:NOBIGDEAL. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
13. Support Net positive, opposes no problem. Miniapolis 23:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
14. Support. I'm downright embarrassed to be reading the oppose votes. An average of four edits a day over ten years isn't enough to know whether or not a candidate is likely to cause harm? They have a userbox on their page that was ridiculously common for years? Not enough AIV reports? (There's no correlation between where admin candidates *say* they want to work and where they actually do the most admin tasks, and there never has been.) Going back to first principles - the only really important thing is "how likely is this person to do something that will adversely affect the project?" And the answer to that question is "very, very unlikely". Risker (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
15. Support per Risker, who summarises my thoughts far better than I could. Sam Walton (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
16. Support also per Risker. The opposes, for the most part, are for reasons that ultimately don't reflect significantly whether Boson should or should not be an admin. In particular, I don't think that a candidate should have to demonstrate need in order to be given the tools. Also, what is wrong with the userbox in question? Is it somehow wrong to want to be an admin? Lepricavark (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
17. Per Risker, and a (completely serious) suggestion to the Crats to ignore any "does not need the tools" votes. Boson is volunteering to help, not begging for a favor. clue > experience. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
18. Support Why not? We can use the help at AfD. If the user wants to get into AIV or RFPP in the future, they can ease into it, it's not that hard. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
19. Support Per Floquenbeam, Risker, and Samtar. Adminship is WP:NOBIGDEAL, and they will be a net positive ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
20. Support as a clear net positive. After reviewing the opposing votes, which range from non-issue to nonsensical, I felt compelled to review and participate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
21. Support per Floquenbeam, Risker, and Samtar. Banedon (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
22. Support good content creation, clean record, don't see any problems Atlantic306 (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
23. Support per Floquenbeam & Risker - Usually I would oppose because of the lack of AFD work, lack of AIV work etc etc however in all honestly we need admins right now, The opposes based on the UBX is nonsensical and should be ignored entirely, As Floq rightly says they're volunteering to help so why not let them?, IMHO they'd make a great admin, Easy support. –Davey2010^Talk 03:18, 17 December 2016 (UTCk
24. Support Works for me. I think those questioning whether Boson "needs the tools" are asking the wrong question. I don't think anybody needs the tools. the real questions are will they use them well?, do they have good judgment?, and do they understand what the needs of content creators are in getting support from admins? No one can predict the future, but it seems to me likely that Boson comes up positive on all these questions. I would urge those who voted "oppose" based on "doesn't need the tools" to reconsider. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
25. Support, after reviewing your AN participation I've concluded that Boson is a member of the class of Wikipedia editors that are competent, respectful and qualified. Disregard all this tug of war between editcountitis and insufficient participation, wanting to be an admin (because we need more of them) and hat-collecting, and need for the tools or not – that's all irrelevant noise. A tip for your pop quiz: Cristiano Ronaldo wears number 7, and the guy's famous in some parts of the world. wbm1058 (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
26. Support This is just the type of candidate that should fly though a RFA (long tenure, great contributions, commitment to the project, willingness to do more, excellent temperament and most of all clue). Whether they need the tools is completely irrelevant. They are willing to take them and any contributions they make in admin areas will be useful. AIRcorn (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
27. Support Seems like a fine candidate, net positive. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 04:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
28. Support. Qualified. -- œ^™ 04:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

    Can you please explain why they are qualified, so your vote is not discounted? Thank you! UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts 15:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

    You seem to lack an understand on how Crats gauge votes, demonstrated by your pestering valid support votes. Perhaps you should stop it. Your job isn't to attempt to validate votes and frankly, it is disruptive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

29. Support. Seems like a trustworthy user who based on testimonials is good at navigating trick discussions. Even if there is inexperience, the candidate seems like one who will be diligent in making sure they avoid screwing up. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
30. Strong support very trustworthy, qualified candidate. Samir 05:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
31. Support Lourdes 05:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
32. Support - Late to the party because I've been off doing my own research, and what do I come back to find? That Risker, Dennis Brown and a raft of other highly experienced admins have said it all above. The oppose votes seem to be the kind that are looking for any old reason to oppose because they just can't stand the idea that a candidate comes along without anything one can objectively complain about. The candidate meets even my RfA criteria which for many years were criticised as being excessively strict - but there is no mention in them about having a need to prove one's worth on the drama boards or AIV. And 16K edits is 16K edits whether they were done over 10 years or 10 months. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
33. Support I have no reason to believe that Boson will perform an admin action against policy. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
34. Support By all indications a trustworthy user with a good amount of experience and a good ability to work with others--to me definitely enough to learn the rest easily and smoothly. Honestly I'm delighted such editors are offering to take the mop, thanks Boson! Innisfree987 (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
35. Support. Not much action at AIV but a lot in article space. That's a problem for some people. If it is the other way around, that's a problem for other people. The important question is if Boson would abuse the tools. I'm convinced the answer to that is "no". We need more admins and I don't see a reason to deny Boson adminship. Yintan  07:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
36. Support ^{Babymissfortune} 07:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

    Not to challenge your vote, but can you elaborate on why? You don't want them to discount your vote because of a vague description. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts 15:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

37. Support A decade of calm productivity is a big fat qualifier.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
38. Support. Clueful, experienced, levelheaded, civil. Glad to support. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 07:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
39. Support--Ymblanter (talk) 09:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

    Don't want to question your judgement with your voting, but can you explain why you are supporting? The bureaucrats often discount votes without descriptions or with vague reasons. Don't be offended about my asking; I'm asking everyone with a questionable vote. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts 15:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

    Unless I've misunderstood, in the most recent 'crat chat, I thought several bureacrats said just the opposite: 1, 2, 3. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

40. Support no reason not to, and every reason to be fairly confident they won't abuse the tools. Pleased with their work in article space, shows they understand what content creation is about. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
41. If the oppose section represents the stickiest mud anyone can find to fling, I can't see any issues here. (Running myself through this tool, I see that at the time of my own RFA I had a grand total of two edits to AIV and zero edits to RFPP, and I've yet to bring the wiki to its knees.) ‑ Iridescent 09:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
42. Support Quelling a dispute at User talk:Eric Corbett is worth more than all the AIV reports in the world. Candidate shows abundance of WP:CLUE. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
43. Support Appears thoroughly experienced and prepared for the role of administrator. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 10:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
44. Support. Why ever not? Double sharp (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
45. Support. content creation a plus. RPP very easy to pick up and very useful to all content creators and watchers. AIV not difficult either. really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
46. Support. I echo much of the positive comment above - it's been put very well by Risker, Dennis Brown and Kudpung (among others), so I won't repeat everything. But some of the opposes... Doesn't need the tools? None of us needs the tools! Hasn't made many reports to AIV or RPP therefore can't be trusted to actually do them? Dealing with vandalism and protecting pages are the easy-peasiest things an admin does. Not enough contributions per month? We're looking at 16,000 excellent contributions here, with a strong bias towards content - that's a very big plus, and whether it's over 10 years or 2 makes no difference. Has an "I want to be an admin" userbox? What?! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
47. Largely per Ritchie. But I'd also add something re AIV. if you are patrolling recent changes manually then you are most effective as a vandalfighter if you look at the edits made by those with redlinked talkpages. Once you spot vandalism and give someone that all important first warning any subsequent edits will be scrutinised by hugglers and you are unlikely to be able to tag before them. This does mean we need to drop AIV reports as a test for vandalfighting admins and focus instead on whether they have shown they know the difference between vandalism and good faith mistakes. ϢereSpielChequers 12:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
48. Support We can't decry obsession with edit counts with our left hand, and with our right damn near do the math on average edits per hour for an RfA candidate. AIV and RPP are exercises involving comparatively little nuance, and if the candidate can't figure them out, they probably have bigger problems than lack-of-mop. Besides this, admins aren't required to be amphetamine fueled backlog reducers. Backlogs are important, but admins are expected to, first and foremost, be a net positive for the project. Oppose !votes are going to have to step up their game if they want to make a convincing argument that this isn't the case. TimothyJosephWood 15:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
49. Support Meets my criterium of being saner than I am. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
50. (edit conflict) Support per above. Good and qualified candidate, would perform well as an admin. I do not see any reason why he should not be an admin. Opposes are not convincing enough. Jianhui67 ^T★C 15:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
51. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
52. Support - I've never interacted with this candidate before, but I believe he is definitely qualified. Also supporting because of stupid oppose votes linked to admin wannabe userbox and statements like "doesn't need the tools" - who does?! Patient Zero^talk 16:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
53. Support. The candidate has extensive experience with this Wikipedia over many years. I'm okay with 16k edits spread out over a decade - I've been an admin since 2007 and my edit rate isn't much greater than his. Admin chores are something one grows into. While there has been limited past participation in some of the admin areas that this candidate wants to get into, comments about their past participation in discussions makes me think they will become a great fresh pair of eyes in difficult situations. Deryck C. 16:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
54. Support I see nothing that causes any concern about this candidate's readiness for the tools and their record strongly suggests a net positive for the project. While respecting everyone's right to their own opinions and standards, I did not find the oppose votes persuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
55. Support Happy to back this candidate. Prefer not to see support !votes doing no more that blowing their own trumpet but the candidate is in no way accountable for the irrelevant musings of those he will soon be joining. Please seek reliable advice when needed. Good luck. Leaky Caldron 17:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
56. Support Better than usual content experience. He may not become hyper-active, but has expressed the desire to help out with backlogs & knows enough to approach areas where he hasn't done much so far with sense. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
57. Support - good content-creation and diplomatic skills will make for a good administrator. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
58. Support Looks like a good candidate, no concerns. Opposes are unconvincing, no concerns after review. Good luck! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
59. Support - I am concerned about a lack of experience in admin-related areas, but I think the candidate is experienced overall and level-headed enough to take it slow at first and to take constructive criticism. Some things that I'm not concerned about: low edit count (I don't think the ideal admin should be addicted to Wikipedia, though of course it's preferred that they participate somewhat regularly), 51% edits to the article space (says absolutely nothing about whether they would be able to press delete or block in the right situations), the admin wannabe userbox (every single admin here wants to be an admin, otherwise they wouldn't volunteer for the extra work). Thanks for volunteering, -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
60. Support without reservation. The continuing parade of ridiculous opposition in RFAs doesn't sway me here any more than it has in the past. --Laser brain (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
61. Support, seems to be a competent editor who has shown steady, long-term commitment and a reasonable approach to conflict. The user's conscious decision to watch at AN/ANI, but not participate in threads without good cause, is probably the best indication that Boson can be trusted with the tools. The oppose votes are completely unconvincing. Antepenultimate (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
62. Support Trusted and experienced candidate. lNeverCry 21:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
63. Per Ajraddatz. --Rschen7754 21:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
64. Support per nom. Sidebar #1: If Wikipedia had an over-abundance of active administrators, I might be more concerned on the "demonstrated need" issue under the general security principle of "don't give someone keys unless they need them." But we don't, so I'm inclined to give the tools to anyone who I think can be trusted not to abuse them. Sidebar #2: Any editor who has been regularly editing for the past 3+ years without any negative issues during that time and no very serious issues before then will typically bypass my usual "admin checklist" and fall into the "you've been around for HOW LONG and you aren't an admin yet? We really could use more admins, why didn't you run sooner?" group and get a "support" unless I find a reason to oppose. For editors with 1/2- to 3 years experience, I generally take a harder look. If you have less than 6 months, you will need to have an exceptional reason and credentials for me to support you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
65. Support Full Rune^{Speak, child of Guthix} 23:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
66. Support Read the opposes - nothing there that is seriously problematic. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
67. Support Opposes are petty nonsense. This is an outstanding candidate. --Drmargi (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
68. Support This is a very good candidate. We need more editors who average 130 edits a month over the years, and we need more administrators. I see no persuasive reasons to oppose this candidate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
69. Support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC) No concerns whatsoever with Boson's maturity, temperament, committement to the project, experience, clue or trustworthiness. I've seen him around for a decade, he is the ideal admin candidate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
70. Support very marginally. The only reason I'm willing to take a gamble here is because the candidate seems to understand their limitations. Boson, if this passes, you absolutely need to take it slow. Ask questions. Work in uncontroversial areas to start. Don't jump into things without asking the administrators experienced in those areas for advice first. Admit to mistakes if you make them, and work to fix them. I think you've got the clue, intelligence, and mentality to be an administrator, but it will only work out well if you don't rush in. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
71. Support I was leaning heavily neutral at first and so I waited to see how this developed. The supports have convinced me that despite the relative lack of experience in some admin related areas the user would be a net positive as an admin and be unlikely to break anything. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
72. Support: I see a long term committed editor who is willing to do more for the project, which is commendable. I have no concerns about abuse of the tools, I believe that they have a clue, and believe that they will be a net positive to the project as an admin. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
73. Support I reviewed this editor, his history and his edits: Others have already brought up a similar rationale: The chance that this editor will do any harm with the tools is extremely small, and imo smaller than with other admins who have passed this year. At the same time he will probably use his tools to do some work the project needs. Therefore I support him simply per WP:NETPOSITIVE. I also read the oppose votes. While I actually can follow their reasoning I don't agree. Personally I think an average of 100 non-automated edits per month over all these years shows a very high participation. Dead Mary (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
74. Support Boson's having a userbox that says that he would like to become an admin does not trouble me in the least; the reason that people go through RfAs is because they want to become an admin so that they can improve Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with being ambitious. Joshualouie711 (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
75. Support because Wikipedia needs more active administrators, and this user is a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 02:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
76. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
77. Support per WP:NETPOSITIVE. Eric-Wester (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
78. Support. I haven't been holding off this long to vote in a new RFA for a while; however, I had to take a step back for a moment when I noticed the early "oppose" votes at the start of this RFA since the percentage was in the low 80s. However, giving the RFA some more time, since I am unconvinced by the opposes to go in that direction and since I don't see anything I would consider a red flag myself, I'm here in the support section as my default stance. Steel1943 (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
79. Support Certified Sane Person. That's really all you need. Blocking vandals isn't rocket surgery. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

    The most sensible and clear cut reasoning in my view. Lourdes 06:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

80. Support. Long tenure with a variety of contributions and good temperament add up to a trustworthy candidate. Boson answered the only plausible objection about lack of experience in certain areas, as also noted by ϢereSpielChequers. I had the same experience when I started to review edits for vandalism without Huggle or other tools. If the userbox is such a problem, why does it exist on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/User groups for users to put on their user pages? It's there without even a warning about possible dire consequences should a user actually be nominated or submit an RfA. I'll not go on at greater length but simply add per Gerda Arendt, Risker, Floquenbeam, Lepricavark, Dennis Brown and Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, among others with similar statements. Donner60 (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
81. (edit conflict) Support It's important to remember that we're here to "determine whether they are trustworthy". I haven't seen anything in the opposes that provides any rationale as to why this individual is not trustworthy. Most of the opposes are about "need" and therefore I default to my RFA standards which are easily surpassed. Mkdw^talk 07:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
82. Support per Lord Roem. Mona778 (talk) 08:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
83. Support. I have checked his contributions and they are well written and referenced furthermore Boson talk page reveals that he is an editor who believes in cordial relations with other editors in that he accepts his flaws (if any). Not blaming him there he's just a human being anyway... -->Shadychiri (talk) 08:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
84. Support because I see no good reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
85. Support of course, I have seen lots of good work from this editor. —Kusma (t·c) 10:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
86. Support easily qualified - I wish you the best of luck! st170e^talk 10:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
87. Support - following answers to Q6, I feel the candidate has the experience to become an admin. The lack of AIV experience does worry me slightly, but surely he'll learn more as he goes along. Good Luck! Class455 (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
88. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 12:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
89. Placing myself here for now. Flatly incorrect answers to the UAA question, but it is unfair to a candidate who hasn't even expressed an interest to work at UAA, which is more trivial than many other areas. SSTflyer 13:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

    I disagree with the candidate's answer to my question (the Halo AfD), but I trust the candidate to be able to use the tools wisely. Support. SSTflyer 14:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

90. Support - an outstanding member of the Wikipedia community. YITYNR ^{My work • What's wrong?} 13:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
91. Support per candidate's contributions and deportment, which demonstrate that extra tools given to this editor will make Wikipedia a better place. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
92. Support A diplomat by disposition, this detail-oriented content creator has obviously invested in Wikipedia for the long haul. I've no problem with his/her having "only" 130 edits (on average) per month. It may be just a fable, but didn't the tortoise win the race? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
93. Support. I find very little substance in the opposition. I did my own check, and I find that the candidate has some solid content experience and an even temperament, and that their AfD votes are grounded in policy. I see their ten-year tenure as a positive: they're still around, right? How does that not indicate commitment? And if they are only performing one admin action a day: well, that's one less for the rest of us to take. RFPP, as has been said above, is a) easy and b) not a place where somebody can do lasting damage. Just take it a bit slow, and you'll be fine. No issues here. Vanamonde (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
94. Support as qualified. Content creation and AfD participation looks good. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
95. Support -- See no reason for concern, and the candidate has only 16,000 edits (not enough, seriously?); as for not needing the tools, it's not a bad thing that Boson doesn't spend all their time on the drama-boards! -- Shudde ^talk 16:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
96. Support - impressive editing history with more than 50% contribs to article space over a decade, clearly will approach administrative functions with forethought and due diligence. Nothing apparent which is cause for concern at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
97. Support - Although I do feel like they should gain a bit of experience with AIV, I trust that they will take the advice of admins that are experienced in those areas. They seems to be very civil and would be helpful in welcoming new editors and helping them. The fact that they are ready to take on problems of backlog is even better. Overall, an amazing candidate. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
98. Support We need more anti-vandal active editors like you as an sysop, thanks for your contribs. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
99. Support - I wasn't overly impressed with the answer to question 6, as someone who has UAA on my watchlist and who has done some "clerking" of reports I can tell that Boson is being far more cautious on account of being less informed on the topic. A key example to me is their response in regard to "Trump Donald" which could and should be blocked for both disruptiveness (on account of "emotional reaction") and impersonation (it's not the real Donald Trump). That said, UAA isn't a focus point for Boson so I had to test the waters of a more relevant area. I was fairly impressed with their answer to my RfPP question. Boson knew when to back away and let another admin with more experience handle it, though I would not have been satisfied with that answer alone. Their "outline" of hypothetical action is fair - warn, full protect, and finally if disruption continues block. I said in my neutral statement below, without some evidence that the candidate would use the tools and do so effectively I would not be able to support the candidacy. Well, in answering my question they've demonstrated that if they do use the tools at RfPP then it is likely it would be used appropriately. Hence, I am satisfied enough to support the candidate in their request for the tools. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
100. Support Good editor. We need more admins, and I see no glaring concerns. Net positive for the project. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
101. Qualified. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
102. Support Satisfied now that he'll ask for help when needed and won't rush in. Katie^talk 21:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
103. Support. Fully qualified candidate. I agree with those who find the oppose comments unconvincing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
104. Admittedly pile-on support. I've read the Qs and As, the supports, and the opposes, and the latter seems to hinge almost entirely on "doesn't need the tools". If that's our new criterion, we'll never promote another admin. —ATS 🖖 talk 00:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
105. Support experienced user with a good understanding of the wikipedia structure. Fbergo (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
106. The folks in the oppose and neutral sections, as of this writing, seem to have forgotten that adminship is not a "perfect editor" award. Candidate is obviously trustworthy and I have no concerns whatsoever. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
107. Support- seems a sound candidate. Reyk _YO! 07:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
108. Support Good solid contributor, knowledgeable & trustworthy. Perfect admin material. -- Marek.69 ^talk 07:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
109. Support - Solid contributor, adequate experience, and attracts only extremely unpersuasive (to me) oppose !votes. Steve Smith (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
110. Support - good to see some contributions to FA reviewing, translation work etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
111. Support an all-round editor who will clearly be a competent admin. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
112. Support A thoroughly level-headed editor with a good range of contributions of different types. Counter-vandalism activity is not as negligible as some have made out, with several hundred reverts, initial user notices and other warnings over the years. To clinch it, I have not before known Wikitext editing compared to the rich organic darkness you get when you blow out a candle [1]: Noyster (talk), 10:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
113. Support - Clean block log and adequate tenure. Profession of desire to be a vandal fighter is enough for me to justify the request for tools, although just about all the editing has been to mainspace or mainspace talk, which isn't really the mark of the typical bright-eyed and bushy-tailed administrator. The tool box is not a "promotion" from editing, it's just a few more buttons for those more attuned to site maintenance than content creation. Both are fine orientations, but different. Ya don't need the tool set for validation... Carrite (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

     "Profession of desire"??? Sounds unseemly. EEng 11:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

114. Support - Trustworthy and well qualified. TheGeneralUser (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
115. Strong Support - Great user all around! I like that he has a pretty large amount of constructive edits, and that he has been around the community and knows the works. The selling point for me was his value of WikiProjects, which I find good for the Wiki as a whole. Prepare for backlash UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts 13:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
116. Support - Seems solid. Not seeing any compelling reason not to support. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
117. Support - Can see nothing in their history to show that they would not handle the tools judiciously and thoughtfully. I could say more, but all has been said by those above. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
118. Support, Seems to be a very trustworthy, consistent editor. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
119. Support - I've only run into Boson a while back, where they were very constructive with a university class I was trying to help edit linguisitcs articles. There were some issues with the student's work, but Boson was patient and helped them along as they could. These are qualities I like to see in an admin. The Interior (Talk) 16:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
120. Support - Very experienced user and he answered the questions well. --Frmorrison (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
121. Support, excellent candidate. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 17:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
122. Support - Fundamentally qualified for the role. (Get it? Fundamentally? Or is it just me?) Kurtis ^(talk) 19:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
123. Support I am happy to support. Good candidates are good candidates, even if they do not become prolific performers of administrative activities. KaisaL (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
124. Support - Seems ready for the additional responsibilities of adminship.- MrX 20:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
125. Support: The candidate seems competent and to have the encyclopedia's best interest at heart. There's work that needs to be done and Boson wants to do it. Go!  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
126. Support: A very good candidate. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 20:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
127. Support. Clearly knows what they're doing, strong grasp of policy, no red flags. The oppose votes are laughable (low participation? from someone who's been around non-stop for a decade? give me a break). agtx 21:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
128. Support All of the reasons in the oppose section are actually reasons to support. 16,000 edits, great, thank you. No need for the tools? Doesn't hurt to have them if they can be trusted. Etc. Willing to support.--v/r - TP 22:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
129. Support Clearly a net positive to the project. One admin that uses their tools only once a month is still better than nothing. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
130. Support Experienced editor, good response to questions. Seems like someone who knows what they're doing. Tamwin (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
131. Support Level-headed experienced editor, with thoughtful detailed answers above. Occasionally "met" Boson editing in Germany-related articles. As far as I am aware there have never been any significant problems or cause of concern. Content-related disagreements have always been discussed cordially and constructively. I am sure he will quickly gain the necessary experience in new administrative functions - a valid concern from some of the oppose votes, but not decisive considering all other positive factors as a whole. GermanJoe (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
132. Support - Experienced, well-qualified editor with thoughtful responses and a clear net positive as an admin. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
133. Support No concern, good candidate.--I am One of Many (talk) 05:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
134. Support though with a minor caveat that edit count seems low for length of tenure and I'd have liked to see a bit more content creation. But candidate has earned the respect of a number of editors whom I respect, and I find the issues raised by the neutral and oppose !votes not particularly concerning. Montanabw^(talk) 07:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
135. Support Quinton Feldberg (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
136. Support No concerns found. Clearly competent. I like wave functions that are symmetric under exchange. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 11:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
137. Support per WP:NETPOSITIVE. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 12:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
138. Support I was discussing adminship with Boson last year, and was preparing to nominate, when my health declined, and I had to slow down on Wikipedia for a bit. See our discussion here: User:SilkTork/Chicha/Potential_admin_chat/Boson. Some of the objections I said would come up have come up, so it's useful to see how Boson responded last year to notions such as not being active enough. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
139. Support: A solid candidate! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
140. Support. Good contributions. In particular, I expect Boson to forcefully carry Wikipedia's policies & guidelines. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
141. Support I see no reason to oppose. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
142. Support No concerns from me. -- ferret (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
143. Support unreservedly. Consistently reasonable, civil, thoughtful. Has more than enough experience, has absorbed community values well, and after digging around, I'm not finding anything that gives me concerns. AIV and AfD are not difficult, so I'm not perturbed by the candidate no having historically focused on them. This person's judgement is sound enough to not wade into things incautiously. This is a candidate expressing an interest in multiple forms of admin work, with a focus on backlog clearing; it's not someone saying something like "I'm going to be all about CSD all the time" without any CSD experience.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
144. Support. Hurrah for backlog-clearing. When an editor makes a report to some noticeboard etc and then sees there's a backlog, it can be discouraging. One can think "When will this issue get looked-at/taken care of?" Good for Boson. Shearonink (talk)
145. Support . without reservation. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
146. Support seems level-headed, with good answers to the questions. The opposes are ridiculous and not in the slightest bit convincing. I do have one word of advice for the candidate, who says they regard WP:ANI as part of the "job description" of an admin: Just like template editing (re: oppose #5) – it is not required or expected, and personally I avoid the Wikipedia:Dramaboard like the plague! :D — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

     The WP:Slough of Despond is a WP:Great Dismal Swamp and a WP:CESSPIT, and seldom a WP:HAPPYPLACE to be, but sometimes admins get yanked there anyway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

147. Support: There's absolutely no reason not to trust him with admin tools; and every reason why the community should. --RexxS (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
148. Support. I cannot find anything I would disagree with in the support comments above, and I cannot find anything I would agree with in the oppose comments below. Candidate knows how to navigate content disputes with tact and intelligence. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
149. Support- and thank you for offering to give up some of your valuable free time. The oppose based on templates is stupidity incarnate. Graham Beards (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
150. Support, worthy of the tools. bd2412 T 01:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
151. Support. Having reviewed their contributions and responses to the questions, I'd certainly trust this user with the administrative toolkit. Looks like they will display good judgment on the job. /wiae /tlk 01:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
152. Support, looks fantastic! Good luck! TJH2018talk 03:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
153. Support' based on the answers given here and a review of contributions. --joe decker^talk 06:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
154. Support - Great candidate. J947 06:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
155. Support I have confidence in Boson, specifically related to KGirlTrucker81's oppose vote I myself wasn't very active in the maintenance areas (short of AfD voting and NPP stuff) before I became an admin, and had to learn RFPP and AIV on the fly (I think I may have put in a handful of AIV requests and probably less than that in RFPP requests). I think I turned out alright, but your mileage may vary. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
156. Support Boson's work and responses both speak very well of him/her. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
157. Support. Happy to do so. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
158. Support The questions posed to the candidate were well answered, I do not see any other reason for concern.--Catlemur (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
159. Support strong content chops and a cooperative attitude DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
160. Support This candidate has all the hallmarks of a great editor. Among those, I'm particularly impressed with the contributions to article space, and the occasional contributions to the Teahouse are a huge plus to me. There are a couple of things I worry about, including the relatively small amount of contribution to wikipediaspace as well as the somewhat insignificant amount of anti-vandalism work. Nevertheless, I see this user's candidacy as a clear NETPOSITIVE, and I have no compunctions about offering my support. AlexEng^(TALK) 22:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
161. why not? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
162. Support Long-term editing experience, demonstrates consistency, well-versed in content creation. Demonstrates character growth in exercising civility in the context of Wikipedia over time as well. --JustBerry (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
163. Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 04:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
164. Support. Seems thoughtful and level-headed, and ready to wield the mop. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
165. Support, an excellent candidate. The feeble bag of non-issues raised by the "Oppose" camp only demonstrate Boson's fitness for the job. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC).
166. Support. Looks like a strong candidate with concern for high quality.KMJKWhite (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
167. Support. And I hope that this marks the last time that anyone opposes on the grounds of no "real need for the tools". The issue is whether Wikipedia needs or could use more administrators, and whether competent individuals are willing to take on that job. Nor should any of us judge another editor's "commitment to the project". We are all volunteers here; every constructive administrative action or other edit should be welcomed. Kablammo (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
168. Easy support' - Also, what the crap is up with the bizarre opposes recently? Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
169. Support - Sensible user who would make a sensible admin. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 01:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
170. Support - Seems to be a methodical, thoughtful editor. Others with more high-level knowledge have already evaluated the skills and background of this editor. --Petrichori (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
171. Support. Piling on. Good candidate - best of luck! — sparklism ^hey! 09:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
172. Support, as meeting my criteria. And, parenthetically, may i add what a pleasure it was to return yesterday after a few days absence from WP and see three RfAs to think about and !vote on. Pleasant Christmas surprise! Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 10:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. While I'm delighted to see that the candidate does not engage in editcountitis and hasn't artificially inflated his edit count (especially not recently) with mindless automated or semi-automated edits of little or no consequence, I am conversely concerned about low participation. Only 16,000 edits in 10 years (which averages out to 130 edits per month or four edits per day), seems to me to indicate low interest in Wikipedia, and thus low overall knowledge. In addition to Glrx's findings below of no evident reporting to AIV or RFPP (the areas the candidate says he wants to work in) and extremely low AfD participation in the past two years (another area he says he wants to work in), in the other area he says he wants to work in, ANI, he has only made comments on two threads (one in 2013 and one in 2014): [2]. I'm also concerned that the nomination does not make a strong case for adminship; the evidence presented is a joke from EEng, one routine AfD comment, comments at a peer-review of an article by a now-banned editor (Rationalobserver, who asked him there: [3]), and the fact that he had the admin hopeful template on his userpage. All in all, I'm not seeing any real need for the tools or any real attempt to gain an admin's perspective or do admin-type work. Softlavender (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

   I seem to recall I was not joking when I told Boson he's a "miracle of diplomacy." He'd defused some tense situation or something (though of course miracle is hyperbole – if he can really work miracles then we really should fast-tract this RfA). If someone will find the diff (probably in Talk:MOSNUM) I can be more specific about the level of miraculousness in play. EEng 03:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

   This was the thread in question. Wikipedia's Institutional Memory ^{© NYB 2016} 09:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

   Ouch, not one of my better moments. How come I can't find the strings miracle or diplomacy on the page you link? EEng 10:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

   I think it's because they aren't there. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts 14:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

   Duh. Iridescent, are you sure that's the right link? EEng 16:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

   EEng, you actually making that comment is here (already linked in the nomination above). The thread I link above is the thread containing the comments by Boson about which you were commenting when you said "a miracle of diplomacy". ‑ Iridescent 16:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

   Having now reviewed the record to refresh my memory, I can now say I was entirely serious (if slightly hyperbolic) in my "miracle of diplomacy" comment. EEng 16:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

   What's wrong with having made only 130 edits in the average month? I don't even manage that and I have a very high level of interest in Wikipedia, and besides, I thought the cutoff for being considered sufficiently active was 100 edits/month anyway. YITYNR ^{My work • What's wrong?} 13:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

   I concur. It's worrying that administrators need to be seen making a certain threshold of edits or being required to edit in a particular area. Everyone is different and a wide variety of talents only benefits the project. South Nashua (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

   Oppose. I certainly appreciate the high-quality contributions and knowledge of Wikipedia's standards, policies, and guidelines. However, I am opposing for now per [4], [5], [6], [7]. --JustBerry (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

2. Oppose. The user has quite an extensive editing history and great content creation skills but based on what i've seen there is no demonstrated need for the tools. 4 reports at AIV total is significantly too low, especially when the user has stated this as an area they'd like to help out in. I am also concerned with the low edit counts month by month - it does not show a good demonstration of commitment to the project. I may be able to support this in a later RfA but regrettably I cannot at this time. -- Dane ^talk 23:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose: The lack of AIV reporting, RFP requests and the I wanna be an admin Ubox fails Kudpung's RFA criteria. Overall, he's an great editor. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 23:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

   The user box for "wanting to become an administrator actually shows that you are willing to do the job. I don't see anything wrong with it and I personally think its a good thing. Class455 (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

   @KGirlTrucker81: You says that he's a great editor overall. Does a lack of AIV reports or RFP requests really warrant refusing the tools to a great editor? And what on earth is the problem with that userbox anyway? Lepricavark (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to the talk page. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 17:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

4. Oppose. Per JustBerry Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

   Sportsfan 1234, now that JustBerry has struck their oppose, are you still opposed? - GB fan 14:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

   Temporary Oppose. I know this will receive a lot of backlash, but until he answers the blank questions, I am opposed to his RfA. If he can't even answer questions for his own benefit, how can we be sure he will answer the questions of others with no benefit to him? UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts 19:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

   If/when the candidate properly answers the questions, will you strike your Oppose !vote? Joshualouie711 (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

   Yes, I am striking the question now. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts 13:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

   You've given Boson a mere 5 hours to answer the question. He has made a whopping total of one edit since you posted the questions, and that was 20 minutes after they were posted. Oh, and in that one edit he was answering a question posted before your questions. Wait your turn! Here's a crazy thought: maybe he's busy in real life at the moment. He isn't obligated to sit before a computer screen for the entire week of the RfA. You are absolutely correct that you will receive backlash for a such a mind-boggling assumption of bad faith against the candidate. Oh, and just to clarify one thing, I'm not sure which questions you might be thinking of as "of no benefit to him", but just about everyone else would include your question in such a category. This RfA is not about you, so quit throwing a tantrum because your relatively unimportant questions went unanswered for a handful of hours. Lepricavark (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

   Thank you. Your comment has not been taken into consideration UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts 13:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

   I don't know what point you are trying to make, but edit summaries such as this one are ill-advised. As you hopefully have learned, the community has little patience for someone who disrupts the RfA process, which you've done as a candidate and, repeatedly, as a !voter. If you know you're going to take backlash for doing something, maybe you should question whether it really needs to be done. You are not doing yourself any favors. For your own good, you need to tone it down. Lepricavark (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

   What Lepricavark said. UNSC Luke 1021, please read and digest the big stack of warnings on your talkpage before you comment any further; AGF isn't infinite, and the community historically takes a very dim view of people who disrupt RFA in the manner in which you've been engaging lately. ‑ Iridescent 20:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

   Are you going to strike your oppose every time they answer all the questions? Are you going to re-add your oppose every time a new question is asked and they haven't had time to respond? Mkdw^talk 07:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

   Yes, striking my oppose now. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts 13:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

5. Oppose—the editor doesn't have enough experience with templates, and should therefore not be given the tools, since admins can edit protected templates. —MartinZ02 (talk) 12:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

   I don't usually do this, but - dude. Did you take away anything at all from the discussions around your participation in the last few RfAs? There is no benefit at all to this kind of oppose on the basis of nonsensical criteria; it will likely be discounted, while casting you in an unfortunate light. Do you honestly advocate that every admin candidate spend an apprenticeship as a WP:template editor prior to receiving the bit? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

   @Elmidae: Yes, because admins are automatically given the template editor user right. Editors shouldn't be given tools they can't handle. —MartinZ02 (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

   You do realise, don't you, that if template editing expertise were required for admin, almost all of our current admins would be ineligible? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

   I do realize that, but that's only the case because they knew their RFA would succeed without any template editing expertise—many of them would probably have acquired it if it had actually been one of the requirements for adminship. —MartinZ02 (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

   I'm don't think that's true, at least speaking for myself. If I were expected to have a reasonable level of expertise regarding every possible tool available to me as an admin, I doubt I would have run. Instead, the community granted me the tools about a year ago on faith, based on my participation here, that I would use the tools to benefit the community within my skills and interests, and that I wouldn't do large damage to any area, because I would know my limitations. So if an candidate says "The main area I want to work in as an admin is in templates. What's a template?" then opposition to a candidate would be well-founded. MartinZ02, I do hope this does not come across as badgering, but as open dialogue. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

   Yep, same here - there's no way I'd have learned everything I was not going to do, including template coding, just to be allowed to volunteer for extra unpaid work. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

   On the other hand, isn't this evidence of an uneven application of criteria by the community? Look at how many times you see "The admin tools come as a complete package" as an oppose to someone who says they didn't want to work in CSD/AfD or AIV? If I were to stand for admin and say I only intended to use the tools to edit templates, would we see the same reaction to the inevitable opposes of "not enough CSD/tagging/closing AfD/voting at AfD, etc."? Even the most respected commentators at RfA like WereSpielChequers has a section User:WereSpielChequers/RFA criteria #Speedy deletion. Either we accept that newly-minted admins may honestly wish to use just a small fraction of the toolset initially, or we accept that the argument of "complete toolset" applies to every admin function, so that demonstrating expertise in editing templates is as much a requirement as demonstrating expertise in deletion. --RexxS (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

   If the application of these criteria is uneven, that's probably due to the disproportionate scale of impact from misuse of these different tools. An ill-informed template edit can be quickly reverted; bad blocks, deletions, application of sanctions, closing of contentious discussions, etc. can lead to permanent damage in the form of lost editors (new and experienced) and the perpetuation of unneeded drama. Antepenultimate (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

   @RexxS I'm not sure how User:WereSpielChequers/RFA_criteria#Speedy_deletion is relevant to this oppose. I have no problem supporting otherwise qualified candidates who never touch the deletion process. My concern is with screening out those whose deletion tagging I find troubling, especially if they intend to get involved in deletion. This particular oppose is because of a total lack of template editing, not a surfeit of incorrect template edits. ϢereSpielChequers 08:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

   Oh yes, that's a characteristic of communities consisting of lots of people with different opinions - things get applied inconsistently. On the subject of template editing itself, given that there's already a separate right and that it requires specific technical competence, I'd be happy to see it removed from the admin package. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

   @Antepenultimate: I disagree that an "ill-informed template edit can be quickly reverted", because bad template edits manifest themselves in pages other than the one where the edit was made, so are often much harder to track down. In comparison, undeleting an incorrect deletion really is an obvious task.

   @WereSpielChequers: "Good CSD tagging combined with newbie helping such as rescuing articles, cleanup and categorisation makes me happy and supportive". I don't see "Good template editing ... makes me happy and supportive". Why should CSD tagging, but not template editing be part of your criteria?

   @Boing! said Zebedee: the problem is that there are many templates that template editors cannot edit, unlike all the other unbundled tools, which grant the full abilities of filemoving, account creation, etc. I don't think there's a major problem with admins screwing up templates, because those who don't know how to edit protected templates, normally don't try. That's the whole point: admins are selected to have the sense not to jump in feet-first into areas where they have no expertise, so why do we tolerate oppose votes based on a lack of expertise in (for example) CSD tagging, yet criticise an oppose vote based on a lack of expertise in template editing? --RexxS (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

   Ah, I hadn't realised that the template editor right was restricted - though I confess I know little about editing templates. Why do we tolerate oppose votes based on a lack of expertise in (for example) CSD tagging, yet criticise an oppose vote based on a lack of expertise in template editing? It's a good question, and I've really no idea - not even why I've made the distinction myself. Perhaps it's one of those things that becomes accepted because of familiarity and ends up self-perpetuating? I think RfA would make a great subject for a social psychology project. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

   I am guessing a) people don't apply to RfA for template editing, b) deletion is a far more high volume process and c) admins don't dabble as much in template editing as they do in deleting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) While it may be technically simple to undelete a wrongly deleted article, persuading a disenfranchised editor to return to the project is a little more difficult, if not impossible in many cases. That's the kind of damage that's best not inflicted in the first place, since it can't be solved by clicking a button. It isn't surprising to me, then, that most voters would care more about knowledge of content policies, judgement, and tact, rather than a candidate's knowledge of template syntax. Antepenultimate (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

   We have instituted AfC in an attempt to lessen the problem of a wrongly deleted article discouraging a new editor, but that's small fry compared to the problem of discouragement through reverting a new editor's sole contribution – and you don't need to be an admin to do that. I agree that voters should care about knowledge of content policies, judgement, and tact, but I disagree that a record of CSD tagging is any more indicative of that than (for example) establishing the consensus on how best to remove a parameter from an infobox. YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

   This kid has a history of bizarre RfA voting. Here he thinks admins having the autopatrolled right by default could be somehow problematic: [8] jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 14:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

   There has been a long tradition of people opposing because they wished to draw attention to some aspect of Wikipedia editing or of the admin role. Not having sufficient edit summaries was one such oppose that became very popular. To be fair this objection has more validity than opposing based on not putting "ce" in enough edit summaries. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral. Neutral for now, after doing a spot check. While I'm delighted to check an admin candidate's edit history and discover that they do not engage in editcountitis and haven't artificially inflated their edit count (especially not recently) with mindless automated or semi-automated edits of little or no consequence, I am conversely concerned about low participation. Only 16,000 edits in 10 years (which averages out to 137 edits per month or four edits per day). That seems like low interest in Wikipedia, in my view, and possibly low overall knowledge. I also do not like it when editors, especially admins or admin candidates, auto-archive their talk-pages so quickly. To me over-quick archiving discourages discussion, transparency, accountability, and community participation. I would encourage the candidate to greatly increase the archiving date-range on their talk page. I think the ideal talk page should show the latest 30 to 100 threads. (Yes, I'm aware that some of our most prominent admins have much shorter archiving on their talk pages, however I disagree with that and I don't think they, or anyone, should archive so quickly.) Softlavender (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Edited to add: In addition to Glrx's findings below of no evident reporting to AIV or RFPP (the areas the candidate says he wants to work in) and extremely low AfD participation in the past two years (another area he says he wants to work in), in the other area he says he wants to work in, ANI, he has only made comments on two threads (one in 2013 and one in 2014): [9]. I'm also concerned that the nomination does not make a strong case for adminship; the evidence presented is a joke from EEng, one routine AfD comment, comments at an peer-review of an article by a now-banned editor (Rationalobserver, who asked him there: [10]), and the fact that he had the admin hopeful template on his userpage. All in all, I'm not seeing any need for the tools or any attempt to gain an admin's perspective or do admin-type work. Softlavender (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

You've given two reasons for withholding support. The first is that a low activity level may demonstrate low overall knowledge. I believe that the user's many contributions, including well-reasoned discussions at AfD, indicate high knowledge of Wikipedia, but I still believe that is a fair point we can dispute. I don't believe personal preference for talk page archiving is a fair point. You think that after 15 days somebody is going to come back and revive the discussion? It's all available in the archives for "transparency and accountability", and possible revival if needed. I personally set my archival time to 7 days, because I dislike clutter. I have never had someone come back after abandoning a discussion for 7 days and try to revive it, much less accuse me of trying to hide it. Withholding support partly because the user dislikes irrelevant and old discussions crowding their talk page doesn't make sense to me. It's like withholding support because the user doesn't have the same preference for an image on their user page as you do. It has no bearing on being an administrator. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC) No longer relevant. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

1. Neutral. At first sight, the candidate is a tenured and significant content creator. I love seeing > 50% to mainspace. For the admin side, I'm worried. Q1 says AIV and RFPP, but the X!'s tools stats tell me there must be fewer than 6 edits to AIV or RFPP. That's usually a fast fail for me. If somebody says AIV, then I want to see 20 AIV reports; for somebody with 15000 edits, I'd like to see more. I'll hold off for now. Q1 also says AfD. There are 65 AfD votes with good results, but there's only one AfD in 2016 and 4 in 2015. No NACs and no logs. This candidate is rarely in the admin territories he mentions, so I don't see a need for the tools. Glrx (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

   This worries me. I don't have any hard numbers/thresholds I look for, but <10 edits in the areas an administrator candidate wants to work makes me question whether the candidate understands the areas very well. Practice makes perfect even for the most intelligent editors, so I do expect to see some activity where the candidate wants to work. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

   It's also worse if you consider the Q1 dramaboard statement: 16 edits to AN and 5 edits to ANI. I want substantial experience for admins who will hang out at ANI. Glrx (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

   I agree. The way to learn the ins and outs of the various noticeboards and why admin actions are taken or refused is to report repeatedly and see what response you get. Being declined for a request, or seeing others' requests declined, is the course of instruction that future admins need before taking on the task themselves. And I 100% agree about ANI. In sum: Adminship in the complex world of the Wikipedia of 2016 should not be an on-the-job training; candidates should have knowledge of the areas they want to work in before they request adminship. Softlavender (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

   I agree, but only in part. Some training will always be on-the-job. It's impossible to fully "get" some of the small details that become important as an admin until you're there doing the job. We shouldn't shoot for promoting complete experts, because those are impossible to come by without the on-the-job experience. We've got to at least shoot for editors with enough experience to know when they're in over their head, though. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

   Yes, obviously I was speaking in broad strokes -- of course specific details are learned once one becomes an admin. But the knowledge of if, when, and why (and how long, if so) to block someone reported as a so-called "vandal", or how to precisely respond to (or refuse) a request for page-protection and why, or how to respond effectively as an admin at ANI (all three areas the candidate has specifically said they want to work in), should not be learned on the job. Softlavender (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

   Neutral leaning oppose based on my comments above. The lack of experience in the areas the candidate wishes to work is unfortunate. I'm not at all about "checking boxes" when judging an admin candidate, but one of the few things I do always look for is experience in the areas the candidate wants to participate. It's difficult to trust even the most intelligent editor to wield the tools in an entirely unfamiliar area. You learn to walk before you learn to run. Neutral pending answers to questions, but I just don't see enough of a record to judge their ability in wielding the tools so far. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

   Neutral -Parking up here for now. Pending answers to Q6, however, the lack of AIV activity does worry me slightly, and thats one of the main areas the candidate would like to work in. Class455 (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

   When are you planning to get me and Iridescent desysopped? Neither of us had any activity in AIV when we got the mop. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

   I have to be honest, I don't think I even knew what AIV was when they gave me the mop. Is that a case for recall?Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

   @Ritchie333:That can be arranged, maybe later today? LOL, Just kidding, Both of you are excellent admins . Candidates who say they want to work at AIV must have some experience of reporting vandals for me, Not all candidates have to, and some admins don't go anywhere near AIV. Class455 (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Moved to Support. Class455 (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

   Neutral - seems to be a good editor, but, I don't see the need for the tools at the moment. Limited AIV and RFPP experience but this is what the editor is requesting the tools for. Being a committed editor has no bearing on this, adminship isn't a status grant - or shouldn't be treated as such - but, a grant of additional tools to help the project. I wouldn't support granting the tools if they weren't a) going to be used, and b) going to be used effectively. Without some experience in the areas the editor want to admin in, I have no way to gauge whether the tools will be used or not, or if they are used, if they are going to be used appropriately. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

2. Neutral I'm liking the absence of Sturm und Drang but get the impression that there may be hidden depths. For example, the candidate seems quite engaged by Euro issues and so is active in controversial matters like metrication and Brexit. As an instance where they may go astray, this edit fails to understand the point which was made. The UK parliamentary petitions are, in fact, affected by the blacklist and this is the sort of thing that admins should get right. Other things I've noticed is that they often edit articles about rude words and that they added {{lead too short}} to Morgenthau Plan, three years ago and the banner tag is still there now, even though they have edited the page many times since. Those issues are no big deal but I've not seen much on the other side of the ledger and so will remain neutral while we learn more. Andrew D. (talk) 11:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
3. Neutral.
   Honestly, I am strongly leaning keep support (net positive, minimal abuse risk), and would have voted so if the RfA was in any danger of not passing, but I want to send a message.
   Parts of the answer to Q6 are inadequate. They give the perfect answer for "RMT Union" but somehow fail to apply it to "Inspiring Futures" or "Thameslink and Great Northern" (whether the user is "only a fan" has no impact on the fact this is a violation of WP:ISU). "Trump Donald" clearly falls under WP:IMPERSONATE (Do not edit under a name that is likely to imply that you are (...) a specific, identifiable person, unless it is your real name. If you have the same name as a well-known person (...) you should state clearly on your userpage that you are unrelated to the well-known person. - emphasis added: likely to imply is enough), no need to go through WP:RFCN. Finally, while they correctly analyze the "MusicAnimal" case, pinging the potentially-impersonated editor "asking for any problems" would cause backscatter - either you deal with the potential problem or you don't, but you do not pass on the burden to investigate to someone else that did not volunteer for it.
   I admit this is fairly minor but my feeling is that the candidate had no real notion of the username policy (not a problem, since it is not one of their areas of interest), but felt compelled to give some answer other than "I do not know". Maybe this is due to the projectors of RfA and a calculation that saying so would trigger "he doesn't know about a fundamental policy" opposes; but it could also be a hint that they would act first and read the manual afterwards.
   Going by the oppose section, there is a lack of admin-area participation. Not a big deal for someone ready to learn, but the above gives me doubt about their ability to do so. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

   I am strongly leaning keep -- I thought this was Requests for Adminship, not Editors for Deletion. EEng 22:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

   Oops. Please do not send me to EfD. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

4. Neutral because I just don't have enough information to provide an honest, measured assessment of the candidate. On one hand, Boson is a long-term editor and prolific content contributor, but on the other hand, s/he appears to have little experience with administrative areas s/he wishes to work in. I also see that they deflected my question (Q8) and/or mostly avoided answering it. Fine, I get the sense that Boson is very by-the-books, but that was already obvious from the get-go, and so their answer didn't provide me with any new insights. That said, while I don't see any potential for abuse of the tools, I also don't see any legitimate need for the tools. Then again, we do have a shortage of admins tackling administrative backlogs, and that maybe we should be accepting any help we can get. Ending by saying that I'm on the fence here, and will probably be revisiting here before the RfA's end. Cheers, FASTILY 23:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

General comments

• As a side note, I strongly recommend that no-one "clerks" the contents of the discussion in the neutrals onto the talk page. If that occurs, I'm likely going to bring it to a noticeboard to try to quickly get consensus to move it back. There's never been any large-scale discussion resulting in consensus that such discussions must be moved to talk, and this particular one is broadly discussing the merits of the candidate. It should remain, as this is a discussion, not a !vote (allegedly). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Consistent, incremental contribution over more than a decade seems like the definition of commitment to me. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree! Deryck C. 16:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• "No need for the tools..." That brings back some memories. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Do we really need two long questions testing the candidate's knowledge of the username policy, when they haven't even expressed an interest in working at UAA? Sam Walton (talk) 13:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Bonus question: Why is the candidate being asked "how will you work to help smaller WikiProjects, with a lot to offer, get noticed and grow in size?" when they don't appear to have expressed any desire to do so, and doing so has nothing to do with being an administrator? Sam Walton (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
    • RfA is a free-for-all. Which is probably the reason why it is so troubled, in my opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Because AGF trumping CIR is laudable in theory, but in practice means we have to tolerate all kinds of shit if there's the slightest possibility it was meant seriously. Do I win the prize? ‑ Iridescent 17:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I see only one username question (Q6) (although it is a big one). I think any admin-related question is worthwhile at RfA, if only to test the candidate's ability to answer "I do not know, and will leave it to someone else". (That is, of course, in a world where an "I do not know" answer will not sink your candidacy. Maybe RfA has gone too crazy for that.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
    • There were two when I commented. Fair point though. Sam Walton (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• I just wanted to note that, at present, the count is 55/5/5. I'm guessing that doesn't happen very often. Lepricavark (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• I mean, I'm so impressed with you, and imma like... :D Lourdes 03:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• You must be impressed. I can tell because you've relegated me to comma status. :P Lepricavark (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

There are still 2 days left for this wp:RFA but the candidate has not been active on Wikipedia for more than 48 hours, and has not answered questions . Maybe RFAs should not be run during the holiday season? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Questions for the candidate are optional, and admins are not expected to be online 24/7 🙃-FASTILY 21:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

While I am here, Fastily, would you like me to add something to my answer to your question about WP:IAR? --Boson (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Ottawahitech, though I should probably be in bed, I am very much here and currently still thinking about the question you added at about 21:19 UTC, just over two a few hours ago [Ah, sorry, though I have been online, I had indeed missed your question which you added a few hours earlier. I saw 21 and briefly thought it was the time. --Boson (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)] , though I have also been trying to catch up on my watchlist. Let me know if you want a reply before I go to bed, or if you are thinking of a different question.? --Boson (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)