Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JoshuaZ

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.


JoshuaZ[edit]

Final (130/5/5) ended 04:22, May 8, 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ (talk · contribs) – I first met JoshuaZ during a dispute at the Death page. I was impressed by the way he was willing to compromise with the stubborn user, and the way he did not back down when the user tried to decredit him. Over time, I found his comments on the Administrator's noticeboard and his insightful questions on various Requests for Adminships. He has also been involved with ArbCom, and many users come to him when they are in need of help (just take a gander at his talk page). Although he has only been here since January 18, he has made over 5400 contributions to almost 1900 different pages, and over 2000 edits within Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk combined (Information retrieved with Interiot's javascript edit counter). I completely have faith in JoshuaZ as an administrator, and I firmly believe that his position as a sysop will help make Wikipedia better. The ikiroid (talk)(Help Me Improve) 22:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A note from me: I would have nominated Joshua myself if Ikiroid has not got first dibs. To the above I would add this: Joshua is a calm, polite and thoughtful editor with a real talent for defusing acrimonious exchanges through unremitting reasonableness. He is exactly the kind of person we should make an admin. Just zis Guy you know? 09:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pile-on for the "planned to nominate this user" category. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully and humbly accept. JoshuaZ 04:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support Great user, no concerns TigerShark 22:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Total, complete support Good luck!--The ikiroid (talk)(Help Me Improve) 22:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, completley. The very epitomy of Wikipedian ideals. Jefffire 23:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Very Strong Support JoshuaZ is a very impresive user. He handles everything with greatness. He has made outstanding contributions, and everything he's done seems lagitamte. Many people, including myself have sugested that he apply for adminship for a long time. Tobyk777 00:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support cool headed and experienced user. _-M o P-_ 04:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak support. NSLE (T+C) at 04:24 UTC (2006-05-1)
  7. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong support; experienced editor, shows thorough knowledge of policy, immense dedication. No hesitations. ~ PseudoSudo 04:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support - do we have a "best new editor of the year" award? Josh has a good understanding of policy, a good range of edits across Wikipedia, and consistently high quality contributions. Guettarda 04:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - solid, trustworthy citizen who won't abuse admin. powers. Metamagician3000 04:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak support - I generally woudln't support your RfA, because you have not been here that long, but I see that your edits are solid and constructive.--digital_me(Talk)(Contribs) 04:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, having had good experiences. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Standards are great, but they should not get in the way of the spirit of the Wiki. This user always seems to be on hand to help out, and I honestly thought he was already an admin. He has my support. --Danaman5 05:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong support - wait, he seriously wasn't already an admin? —Khoikhoi 05:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Great user. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support balanced, helpful and active editor. Ideal candidate. Tyrenius 05:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Weak support. Like others above, the cliché holds that I thought this user an admin already. I do have concerns that this editor jumped almost immediately into administrative issues and may be pining for "authority"; however, we have no clue (unless he answers here) how long he hung out before registering, and he has been a solid, helpful editor in every respect. I have no reason to oppose. RadioKirk talk to me 05:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Seems well versed in Wikipedia concepts. -- Tangotango 05:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Often I have run across this editor and have thought to myself, "He would make a good admin." I can think of no better time to state this opinion out-loud for once. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, great Wikipedian. I've seen him around on Wikipedia especially at AFDs, and I like what I've seen of him. --Terence Ong 06:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. He seems to understand procedure well and his "saves" speak well of his approach to articles. -- DS1953 talk 06:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. I was initially skeptical, but after reading the candidate's responses below and seeing his (often brutal) self-honesty, I was moved to whole-heartedly support. We could really use more admins with self-knowledge and other-focus like this one.Captainktainer 06:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. I don't think I've seen an admin candidate with more detailed and honest answers to questions than this one. No reason to oppose. Kimchi.sg 06:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. I appreciate the thoughtful answers to the questions below. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - Richardcavell 06:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Edit Conflict Support. A very good way for an RFA candidate to impress is to speak wisely at such venues at WP:AN (whilst running the "career politician" risk referred to below). Josh does this. I've no doubt that he will use the buttons wisely. --kingboyk 06:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. May Day, May Day --Cyde Weys 07:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support no reason IMO to oppose. Computerjoe's talk 07:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 08:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Whoops...I already thought he was an admin. Great user! DarthVader 08:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Will make an excellent administrator. EurowikiJ 08:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. I go to sleep for one night and see what I miss... Petros471 09:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. *faints* --Celestianpower háblame 09:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. --Sean Black (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Just zis Guy you know? 09:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. At one point, going by his behavior and knowledge, I too thought that he was an admin already. — TKD::Talk 09:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Alright then— Dunc|☺ 10:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Good balance of edits in various namespaces. Thought he was one. — May. 1, '06 [11:29] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  39. Zupport! Great editor, I see no reason to suspect he'd not be a great admin --Deville (Talk) 11:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Excellent editor, good knowledge of Wiki rules, broad range of main space edits, willing to overlook the fact that he's a math geek ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. I even went to the permission log to see if he was not a sysop already... Fetofs Hello! 11:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. I see this guy everywhere, and everything he's done confirms he will be a diligent and responsible sysop. Bucketsofg✐
  43. Support Joe I 12:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Even though you didn't wait for me to nom you.[reply]
  45. Support Definitely deserves the mop. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 13:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - long overdue -- Tawker 14:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong Support Marvelous editor. Quite possibly the "Rookie of the Year" for 2006. :) Xoloz 15:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support, based on my first hand experience with him. Much more Wikiwise than the calendar shows. He also is willing to look at both sides of an issue and change his mind if given better information. A good character trait for an admin. FloNight talk 15:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Suppose per multiple nominations and interactions on talk page. Definitely admin material. --Elkman - (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support based on interactions in WP_talk:RfA, RfC and other places. -lethe talk + 16:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. 50th Support. Werdna648T/C\@ 16:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Strong Support One of several obvious, excellent nominations lately. JoshuaZ will be an even greater asset to WP as an admin if his history and our past interactions are any indication. FeloniousMonk 17:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support, although young by Wikipedia standards, he has been very active in the Wikipedia namespace. -- ReyBrujo 18:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support, he is a very good editor who is always on hand to help others. I go by the maxim that if you're clearly ready for adminship you've been here long enough. Rje 18:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support AnnH ♫ 18:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Total Support This guy knows what he is doing!
    While I'm flattered by your support, anons can't vote in RfAs. Sorry. JoshuaZ 19:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support all the way I have nothing but good things to say about Joshua. --Jay(Reply) 19:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Strong Support positive experinces with this user Jaranda wat's sup 19:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Very impressed with the detailed replies to the questions, and contribution history shows a cool head. MartinRe 19:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. He has more than enough experience. --TantalumTelluride 19:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strong support. Balanced editor, with good user interactions and strong project participation. Relatively short time-base of WP involvement, but has managed to squeeze in a lot of experience. -- MarcoTolo 21:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Great user and very involved with the community. Time to give him the mop :)—G.He 21:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. --Rory096 22:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support, great candidate, i thought he was an admin. Vulcanstar6 23:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Rama's Arrow 23:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Despite the short time he's been here, he's had a very positive impact and shown that he will be responsible with the admin tools and make Wikipedia a better place if given the responsibility of using them. Gwernol 23:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support per above (hey, same username format!) - AndyZ t 01:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support, naturally. Fits the current admin mold well. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Strong support. Perfect candidate. Lots of common sense and cares about the policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Very Strong Support. Arbusto 01:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support sound edits and attitude.--MONGO 02:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Cliché Support. Royboycrashfan 02:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support A Role User. Follows policies perfectly, but keeps WP:IAR in mind. --Primate#101 03:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Of course... ++Lar: t/c 03:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. Numerical time limits are useful to determine whether an editor has grasped enough of the Wikipedia policy base to do a good job as adminstrator; however, they are not infallible, and there is no reason why not to grant adminship to a well-prepared editor who is already knowledgeable about policy, even at an "early age", if it can be called that. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. don't personally know him, but good track record--Bonafide.hustla 06:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. The guy has been acting as an admin for some time. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support sounds good to me. Gryffindor 12:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support, good editor. We need more like him. --Tone 16:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Are you sure you aren't an admin already? Definitely Support. Omni ND 18:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - Liberatore(T) 18:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. RFA Cliché #1 support. Thryduulf 21:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support, though he did mistake me for an admin a little while ago, which is obviously a terrible lapse in judgement.-Polotet 21:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. Good editor, will make good use of tools. Jayjg (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support very good at diffusing potentially acrimonious situations with respect to Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs) and on the Jonathan Sarfati page. David D. (Talk) 21:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Don't care how long you've been there. You are exempt from my exacting standards. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support - He's earned the mop. Vsmith 01:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support - less edit in the mainspace that needed according to my standards, but seems to have a strong interest in the Administrative work and did it excellent so far. abakharev 03:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support I believe in him. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support - Ofcourseitsabouttimeithoughthewasalreadyanadmin. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 06:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. From my interaction with him he seems quite level-headed and has a decent knowledge of policy. I quite enjoyed his responses below (questions and neutral votes) too. Kotepho 06:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support But please edit more in mainspace, it's the focus of the project and you're good at it -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 06:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support- Reyk YO! 07:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. I keep noticing good work by this editor. -Will Beback 07:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Why wait, you are already good enough! I support you! Sjsharksrs 07:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. utcursch | talk 10:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. Joseph Solis 10:15 (UTC)
  98. Support.  Grue  14:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. 99th Support (almost 100!), great editor with a lot of experience, not likely to abuse admin tools--TBC☆O M G! 15:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support WP:100!!!!. Ok, he has been around only three months, but has more than proved himself in this time. He has almost as many edits as me, and I have been around four months longer.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support, happy to be the first of the second hundred of editors to support ;). Deizio talk 16:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support, no reason for me to oppose. A well-rounded editor with a style similar to me, it seems. Grandmasterka 20:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support, good work. Prodego talk 21:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support - Thought he was already. Seems eminently qualified. Georgewilliamherbert 21:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support. We've had differences, but he's a good editor. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. Seen him around, does great work. Isopropyl 01:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Super Support Great editor, polite person, well round contributor. Who in the right mind would oppose? Funnybunny (talk/QRVS) 02:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support - I'm a bit concerned about the lack of referencing (I think that should be #2 (behind NPOV)). Overall-- looks like a good candidate. Nephron  T|C 06:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support - While I wouldn't normally want to enlarge the adminship count of the scientistic cabal that rules over all the creationism-related pages, I find JoshuaZ the most reasonable and civil of them. His well-rounded editing is also a plus, he is very attentive to detail, and I find his self-appointed role on RfA very helpful.--ragesoss 07:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support Quality editor, good value at AfD, should make an excellent admin. Anyone who gets humour as well as JoshuaZ gets my appreciation in any case. MLA 20:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. I don't support "young accounts" for Adminship normally, but there are exceptions. JoshuaZ seems to be a perfect example: his involvement and knowledge of the project are beyond his cronological time as a member of the community. Since this is a user who has managed to get to the level necessary for Adminship despite his limited time with the project, the logical move is to support. Redux 21:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support on WHEELS!!! This might be a bit of a risk/project, but I have faith. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 23:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support. Per nom! KimvdLinde 01:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support good, qualified candidate. seen this user around plenty and find no reason to oppose.--Alhutch 17:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support per nom. --Andy123(talk) 17:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support. 3 months is too long for this user not to be an admin. Hiding Talk 04:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support. Sure. --Bhadani 14:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support per nom. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Full Support. (^'-')^ Covington 03:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Last minute Support. Good thing I caught this before it closed. JoshuaZ's contributions to the management of my RfA show a good head and neutrality, and his edits are impeccable.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 12:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support very cool-headed and polite. Despite voting against a tfd I nom'd, he was very good in communcating why it should stay and responding to my comments. And BTW, who cares that he hasn't been here your standard six months. He obviously has a good understanding of the system, and I applaud your Rfa questions to other users, as they have also helped me to decide (actually not to vote). Chuck 13:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support --heah 15:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Full Support Very knowledgable, keeps a cool head. --CRGreathouse 20:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support. —Ruud 21:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Slightly Strong Support If I knew you were not already an admin, I'd have nominated you myself! But I think 3 months is a tiny bit too soon. Jonathan235 22:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support after reading questions posed to User:Benon's rfa. User_talk:Dlohcierekim 22:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support. Not like he really needs it, but why not voicing it when you like the candidate? Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 23:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. support Benon 02:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support, and glad to do it. Mangojuicetalk 02:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 03:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Weak Oppose. Three odd months is too soon to become an admin, in my view at least six are required. I am also concerned that this user sometimes fails to understand that proper sourcing actually requires a footnote or other direct reference [1], [2], [3], [4] An assertion that something is sourced, or a direct quote, without providing the source is not good enough. This is especially true for the controversial articles, such as these extremist Christian articles. I realize that balance is difficult to achieve here, and that these articles can be magnets for vandalism (which this user spends a fair amount of time reverting), but I sometimes wonder if this user doesn't lean a bit too hard to one side. Besides that I see mostly good edits and a relatively constructive approach to AfD (although I have only looked at a small sampling). -- JJay 11:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - Too soon. --Knucmo2 12:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - JoshuaZ seems to be a bright guy and very level-headed - I'm sure he'll be a great admin here. But with all sincerity, I cannot do anything but oppose someone who has lowered themselves to the reprehensible depths of posting "Questions" on WP:RfA pages. The Q/A grandstanding has nothing to do with anything. Shut up and vote...if you don't recognize the name, don't vote. Why does Wikipedia need more bureaucracy? It is already overwhelmed. It is my hope that others will recognize this flaw with the current process, (as opposed to the flippant nomination process of a year or two ago) and join in voting against all parties that seek to submerge the flexibility of Wikipedia with unnecessary policies and procedures. The current nomination procedure has been turned into a three-ring circus. Perhaps I'm stuck dreaming of the past, but I feel very strongly that the additional procedures currently in place here on RfA are not at all helpful. I do wish to oppose anyone that I see as part of that trend. --Connel MacKenzie 05:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC) (Militantly --Connel MacKenzie 06:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    "Militant oppose"? This is absolutely ridiculous. --Cyde Weys 05:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you prefer that such questions be confined to the talk page? What the hell is so wrong about wanting to know more about the candidate before voting? — May. 3, '06 [05:35] <freakofnurxture|talk>
    Nothing is wrong with wanting to know more about a candidate. Feel free to ask them on their talk page. But making and encouraging the Q/A nightmare a requirement is Instruction creep at its worst. --Connel MacKenzie 05:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this isn't so much a vote but an point as per IRC "<Connel> Tawker, as I said, if I thought my negative vote would have any affect on the outcome, I would not have done it." - in short its a point vote on the number of questions asked no more no less "<Connel> Please do. With timestamp. If it seems like it is affecting the vote, I'll change it to neutral." - by own admission we can safely disregard this vote with respect to the candidate and more with our RfA policy -- Tawker 05:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The portions you omitted were: "> See, that's the bureaucracy I'm talking about! > It is *my vote*, regarding my assessment of the candidate." I can understand you misinterpreting it as a "point vote" (whatever that exactly is,) however, it is the defining characteristic I saw when looking at this contributor's contributions. --Connel MacKenzie 05:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This whole thing seems like making a point to me. He doesn't have anything against JoshuaZ in particular, he's just trying to change RfA policy, so he's going to try to do that by voting oppose on a bunch of candidates (thus generating lots of ill will). Brilliant. --Cyde Weys 05:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I do specifically have this philosophical difference with JoshuaZ; my opposition to his candidacy is based on his specific practice of entering questions. --Connel MacKenzie 06:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand concerns that additional questions could be a problem to the RfA system. They have the potential to increase the stress for what is (to some) an already stressful process and in the worst case could turn RfAs into some sort of inquistion. However, it does puzzle me slightly as to how my preference for asking questions would influence my ability to function as an admin(it may be that I have more lax standards about what admin candidates should be like; I've supported candidates with whom I've disagreed on much more directly related admin matters, such as those with strong inclusionist/deletionist tendencies). If I were a 'crat candidate I would understand that concern much more. I would also be tempted to argue that allowing the addition of extra optional questions leads to more flexibility in the process not less as long as the questions are always considered to be optional. If anything were instruction creep it would be a mandate to only use primarily the three default questions. I would love to discuss this in more detail, however, since it doesn't seem directly pertinent to this RfA, I would prefer if that conversation occured on my or your talk page or the general RfA talk page. Thanks. JoshuaZ 06:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also one further point(last point on this topic I promise): I believe that further questions if they are useful and well phrased make borderline candidates more likely to pass rather than less so. An example of this is Jedi6's RfA, where my primary question was about something I was strongly considering opposing the RfA for, and he gave a very satisfactory answer which changed my vote to support. We have, in my mind, a far more serious problem: when candidates respond to many of the concerns raised by oppose votes (like in Master of Puppets recent RfA), other users then proceeed to oppose the candidate for being too argumentative. Questions provide a natural way for the candidate to have a chance to respond in a useful fashion where everyone can see the concern raised and answered, not on an out of the way talk page. I hope that clarifies my attitude on the matter. (I'm sorry for taking us further down this tangent). JoshuaZ 06:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your coherent response. (That's exactly the sort of response that made it painful for me to post an "oppose" vote in the first place.) To answer the RfA relevant question above: I feel/fear that the type of admin you will be, may be that of a sysop who supports more layers of policies and procedures, rather than fewer. I would very much prefer to continue the discussion about the other issues on our talk pages. --Connel MacKenzie 11:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What's wrong with policy? If we had a smaller community, like wikipedia did in the beginning, we wouldn't need the policies we have now, because every wise admin and crat could help out. But because many conflicts occur that don't fall upon the ears or eyes of the sysops, many editors are left resolving conflicts by themselves, with each other, based on policy. As the amount of users increases exponentially on Wikipedia, this is going to become much more common. An example of this is the conflict Joshua and I entered in the Death article with a new user. We were able to solve the problem without an admin because we were civil, we followed the policies laid out, and so nobody ended up blocked or pissed. You see, the more policies we get, the easier it becomes for wikipedia's editors to govern each other without resorting to ArbCom. And the people who will primarily develop these policies are sysops. To oppose an increase in policy is almost opposing the expansion of the wikimunity with stability.--The ikiroid (talk)(Help Me Improve) 00:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, common sense is a better tool than policy. As policies develop, they gather a life of their own. In general, policies gain a kind of immutability and are applied in a draconian manner; that hurts more often than it helps. The notion that a policy should exist for every possible situation is absurd. --Connel MacKenzie 16:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Common sense is subjective, and differs from person to person based on the paradigm they put the world in, which is in turn based on events that occured in their life and the way those problems were handled by the people around them. You'll see that a lot of wikipedians have left the project or have become vandals because Wikipedia's policies didn't fit their notions of common sense. Nobody bothered to tell them, or they refused to listen, to the explanation that policies are the common average of everyone's common sense. If someone is abusing a policy to meet their own needs, you list it under "Complex Vandalism" or you request a peer review. And also, you can change the policy: you make it more specific, so that it doesn't cover every possible situation, but it umbrellas the handeling of a variety of possible scenarios. Wikipedia isn't a democracy or a beauracracy, so you don't need to make a big consensus befor requesting a change, which is why the policies work. Of course you can break the gordion knot of rules when needed too, but bear in mind that the policies give you a direction to go in, and specific direction is what we need.--The ikiroid (talk)(Help Me Improve) 01:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I'd like to thank the two of you for having this discussion on my RfA page, since you both brought up issues that I hadn't thought that much about before. That said, I think you are both expressing somewhat extreme positions in regard to how much/when to apply policy. I'd like to think that my position on the matter is somewhat in between the two of you. Policy is often necessary, and when it exists, it should be followed unless one has a good reason otherwise. WP:SNOW and WP:IAR are both important as both timesavers and other circumstances when used with restraint. Similarly, we should not construct new policy on a matter unless we have good reasons to do so. As with so much on Wikipedia, the situation is somewhat a balancing act. My attitude on the matter can be summarized in a line from an edit summary by Will Beback which I have quoted on my user page: "Better articles are our goal, not better policies." Now, if I may, I suggest that further discussion of this topic be taken to a talk page(either mine or one of yours) since it is getting somewhat tangential to the RfA. JoshuaZ 01:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have stricken my "oppose" as on reflection, Tawker is absolutely correct that this is WP:POINT, moreso than a specific objection to a contributor. Having reviewed the questions posted by JoshuaZ, they seem to all have been encouraging questions, to address specific voting problems that were being encountered. As much as I detest the policy of permitting "Questions" of RFA, I cannot in good faith oppose this excellent contributor's nomination on that basis alone. Neutral. --Connel MacKenzie 17:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. I agree that grilling candidates for what is supposed to be "no big deal" is rubbish. That you do it without having been here for more than a couple of months shows where your priorities lie: too far from mine for me to support you. Grace Note 10:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Seems to be an intelligent and friendly person, but doesn't pass my personal requirements for adminship, most notably that he claims to be proud. (No, it is not a matter of semantics.) --Dragon's Blood 19:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand that one. Would you be so kind as to explain? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The user went to just about every current RfA/RfB as you can see here: Dragon's Blood history and in most cases used a variant of this "too prideful" argument to oppose. Draw your own conclusions. Me, I'm proud, sure and not ashamed to admit it. I think I do good work here and if I didn't I wouldn't want to keep doing it, after all. I assume many of my peers feel that way too. I've been a member of and an observer of commmunities for a long time... False humility is, well... false. It can be as bad or worse than excessive pride. The workman should take pride in his work, and there is nothing wrong with that. ++Lar: t/c 22:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit troubling, really, (Dragon's behaviour). How can one say that someone displays excessive pride when it seems that one takes excessive pride in pointing out the same in others? It's that whole beams and motes, logs and splinters argument. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been a little concerned with Dragon's editing habits, most edits seem to be RfA opposes, the user started voting on RfA's on the day of account creation which raises a red flag. I'd urge any 'crat to take this vote into consideration and the background as something that just raises a red flag for me -- Tawker 04:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't take it personally. You are all fine editors. Pride can be a useful tool for an editor to have. It only causes problems for administrators though. --Dragon's Blood 02:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Tawker's concern may be broader than that. For example, you also opposed LV's adminship based on his username. I personally am a bit curious how you know that pride is a bad thing in admins given your short time here. Also, I would suggest that you may be conflating the meaning of the word "pride" pride in one's accomplishments is not the same as pride in oneself. I agree that the second can be problematic in admins. I generally don't see the first one as a problem. In any event, we should continue this on a talk page since like many of the conversations in this RfA it is getting to be tangential to the RfA. JoshuaZ 03:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Oppose. Not happy about the conflict to edit ratio, but seems affable and resilient. Would prefer more time, despite support of users I respect. Changing vote to support after reading questions posed to User:Benon's RfA.User_talk:Dlohcierekim 22:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Dlohcierekim User_talk:Dlohcierekim 22:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Just how many of his edits were from the Q&A? the_ed17(talk)Use these! 17:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    About 20-30 edits were likely due to the RfA questions, if you want, I can through my edits in more detail and give you an exact number. JoshuaZ 18:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, NO, NO!! What I meant was how many edits came from putting Questions on RFA's! Sorry, my comment wasn't very clear. the_ed17(talk)Use these! 19:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, that's what I meant. About 20-30 of my edits have been adding RfA questions. JoshuaZ 20:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral I must hold you to the same standards everyone else on RfA is normally held against; you just have not been here long enough regardless of the number of edits you made during March and April. joturner 23:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    COMMENT But I thought the minimum period is at least 3 months with 2000 edits? --Siva1979Talk to me 04:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no real minimum, per se; most users have their own preferences, but these days they tend to be 1-2 months experience and 3000-4000 edits that are evenly spread out. _-M o P-_ 04:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I refer you to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards, Siva1979. ~ PseudoSudo 04:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    MoP, one to two months is definitely not the standard minimum. Most look for at least three to four (active) months. And yes, I know someone is going to say he has had his three to four months, but because JoshuaZ has a significant number of support votes already, I see no reason to change my vote. Even if JoshuaZ didn't have a significant number of support votes, I still wouldn't change as neutral votes mean virtually nothing; they're like comments. joturner 04:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Jorturner's vote is highly understandable (I actually expected an oppose vote from him). In fact, he was decent enough to tell me when I was initially considering running that he thought I should wait longer. Considering that warning, I see a vote which is "neutral" from him as almost a compliment. In general, oppose or neutral votes based on my lack of time on the project are reasonable. JoshuaZ 05:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral great user, but his recent post on my talk page makes me wonder whether he understands the difference between content dispute and clear-cut vandalism. This is rather minor issue so I'm changing to support. I just was in a bad mood at the time. Sorry.  Grue  14:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like you could learn to do the same yourself...--Sean Black (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what your definition of vandalism is, but I think it does include the intentional defacing of sufficiently large number of user pages. Anyway, this doesn't have to do anything with this RfA and I don't understand why you're bringing this up.  Grue  12:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're saying he doesn't understand the difference between vandalism and a content dispute when it seems clear that you don't understand it.--Sean Black (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please avoid ad hominem attacks. They don't help the nomination process in any way. —Cuiviénen, Monday, 1 May 2006 @ 22:10 UTC
    It wasn't ad hominem, nor was it an "attack" at all.--Sean Black (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Read ad hominem again and you will find that your argument is a textbook definition. Regardless, this really isn't relevant, and I will not continue conversation along this vein. —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 2 May 2006 @ 01:27 UTC
    Not to be too pedantic(especially on one's own RfA), but you're both incorrect. It is an ad hominem and it is one of the rare occasions where an ad hominem attack is logically valid. Since the matter at hand is Grue's opinion without any specific evidence(such as difs) given, a valid response by Sean is to question whether Grue has the ability to correctly judge what constitutes vandalism. (By the way, am the only who finds it amusing that on my RfA the most heated discussions are occuring in response to neutral votes?) JoshuaZ 05:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, Zoe and Grue were edit warring on Graham Nelson over the presentation and emphasis of material [5]. Grue then gave Zoe a {{test4-n}} [6] and the following exchange resulted:[7] [8] JoshuaZ 15:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently I was wrong here, in that the edit was made by a sockpuppet of a banned user and so Zoe considered it to be revertable regardless of whether it was a better version. JoshuaZ 05:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Great user, but the time here may not be long enough.--Jusjih 14:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. This user is very helpful and active in structural aspects (Rfa,AN/I, etc.) of Wikipedia and even though I feel inclined to support his lack of content contributions to the encyclopedia impedes me. Joelito (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. User involved himself in an RfA where he was not listed (the most likely reason why he 'was not mentioned in the final Arb Com decision'). I too have noted his penchant for making authoritative-sounding comments to others while lacking any actual authority. Coupled with a lack of longer experience, this raises a worry. Finally, he seems to have had trouble with NPOV. That said, I cannot vote oppose because I have found that he is willing to make compromises in conflict. Therefore, my opinion is neutral. I think that more experience might aid him in being a good administrator. agapetos_angel 01:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I have stricken my "oppose" as on reflection, Tawker is absolutely correct that this is WP:POINT, moreso than a specific objection to a contributor. Having reviewed the questions posted by JoshuaZ, they seem to all have been encouraging questions, to address specific voting problems that were being encountered. As much as I detest the policy of permitting "Questions" of RFA, I cannot in good faith oppose this excellent contributor's nomination on that basis alone. Neutral. --Connel MacKenzie 17:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC) (copied from above ~ PseudoSudo 18:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Comments

Total edits 5458

Distinct pages edited 1878

Average edits/page 2.906

First edit 16:01, January 18, 2006

(main) 1607

Talk 856

User 85

User talk 1088

Template 2

Template talk 5

Help 1

Category talk 1

Wikipedia 1589

Wikipedia talk 224 

For user's last 2000 edits:
26 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 4hr (UTC) -- 01, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 5, April, 2006
Edit summary use for this user (over the 2000 edit(s) shown on this page): 99.85%
Average edits per day: 77.62
Edits on top: 8.05%
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 65.25%
Minor edits (non reverts): 20.65%
Reverts: 14.05%
Unmarked edits: 0.05%

Comment I don't like editcounts very much but as long as its going to be here it might have some semblance of accuracy. To that end: about 160 of the Wikipedia edits are to the Agapetos_angel arbitration and so aren't as productive as Wikipedia space edits should normally be thought of. There are about 120 edits that wouldn't exist if I had used preview correctly. Another about 80 talk edits(in some form of talk space) were not encyclopedic in nature, i.e. jokes, congratulations for RfAs, etc. There are another 60 or so edits in talk space due to not following WP:BOLD as much as I should have and about 15 edits were to user space before being moved over to other spaces. I hope that helps. JoshuaZ 04:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: At the risk of using a cliche, the most obvious admin duties I intend to do are vandal fighting and blocking vandals. I have a number of frequently vandalized pages on my watchlist, including God and Evolution, and having rollback would be very helpful. Furthermore, I frequently need to report vandals to WP:AIV and I would like to be able to block them myself. I also intend to stick around WP:ANI (although not too much since it can be unpleasant at times, possibly the only place as regularly uncivil as AfD). I'd also like to help slightly with AfDs, although I will only close the more clear cut cases until I have more experience as an admin. One thing I would strongly like to do is keep track of WP:AN/3RR since it often takes hours for a reported 3 revert to be resolved, and often in that time the relevant editor has reverted a 5th or a 6th time. I (and I suspect many others) find this frustrating, and so I hope to help keep the response time lower. I would like to eventually help dealing with image related concerns, since I think at both a moral and pragmatic level, copyright concerns should be paramount. However, I currently have no image experience and so will not do any image related admin chores until I have a lot of experience with images as a user(which I actually intend to start doing soon). I'll also keep a watch on Tawkerbot2's vandal report page. JoshuaZ 22:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm pleased with a variety of my contributions to Wikipedia. I have not, as yet, been heavily involved in bringing up any article to Feature Article status. This may reflect a short attention span on my part. However, I am proud of my many other edits. Although I am not an inclusionist, one thing I am proud of is the articles I have saved from deletion by either by improving them or by finding strong reasons why they should be kept. One example of this is Curtis Cooper which when it came to AfD I expanded from a note about one of his more minor accomplishment to a stub which showed sufficient reason why he was notable and thus saved it from AfD. Similarly, when Jeffrey Lagarias was prodded, I expanded it to a stub that justified its notability. I'm also proud of some of the compromises work I've done on contentious or controversial topics. One good example of this is Peter Ruckman where a (possibly related) editor and others were making POV edits along with actually good edits. Combined with problems of incivility, most editors were just reverting the POV pushing edits on site. Despite the difficulty of dealing with these editors, I and a few other editors managed to talk to them and implement some of their changes that both improved the article stylistically and made it more NPOV. The details of that are largerly on the talk page of that article and on PSRUckman. I'm also proud of my work maintaining the page List of films by gory death scene(I hope no one opposes based on that) which had entries frequently added by anons. These additions require cleanup, wikification and sometimes research to figure out what the anon was trying to say (in the case of some of the more awkwardly phrased additions). I'm also very proud of my work with Stargate related articles, including general clean up and expansion. My work with those articles prompted Tobyk777 to give me a barnstar. The last thing I feel a need to mention (and this is going to sound odd) is my support vote on Tawker's second RfA, which gave a detailed reason for why he should be supported despite not meeting many standard criteria. In all modesty, judging from how many supports there were "per JoshuaZ" or mentioning my comment, it isn't obvious to me that Tawker's RfA would have been succesful without my comment, and I think the last few weeks have shown that we do in fact benefit massively from Tawker being an admin (my comment can be found here).
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have probably been involved in more conflicts than most users with my number of edits. This is largely due to my areas of interest, especially in pseudoscience topics and fringe science topics and also certain other controversial topics. I haven't really been stressed much with the conflicts I've had. The above mentioned conflict on Peter Ruckman seems like a good representative example of how most of these conflicts have gone. The most stressful event related to an edit conflict was a death threat from a neo-nazi anon, but that was handled by various admins in a quick and satisfactory manner. The second most stressful occasion was when 67.160.36.12 responded to my AfDing an article by making an impostor account Joshuaz and then preceeded to present pictures which he claimed showed that I had promised on another forum to go and delete the relevant article. That seemed to be more of an honor and good name issue, and in some ways left me more stressed than the previous occurence, but various admins including Cyde told me that if I just waited it out it the troll would go away and he was correct. I was also involved in the long running problem with Benapgar before he was banned by community consensus (ratified by the Arb Com). I think everyone involved with that will say that I kept my cool throughout that episode, despite repeated personal attacks and other problems(I slightly regret my handling of that situation because I still think that Benapgar could have become a possibly productive editor if I had handled the situation better). I have on occasion been overly sarcastic, especially with users that take themselves too seriously or have strong POVs. In at least two occasions this has crossed the line of what should be considered acceptable. In the first occasion, a user called a large collection of users "Christian-Hating Left Wing Socialists" and I told him that he forgot about baby eating and that babies are delicious [9]. On another occasion (and I won't bring up the specific dif because I'm now on better terms with the relevant editor and don't seem a need to bring him up by name) a user declared that he wasn't interested in editing Wikipedia to make an encyclopedia but he edited for "truth, justice and freedom!" and I told him that he sounded like he was a comic book character and suggested a longer slogan based on his editing history. Honesty compells me to bring up the two occasions on specific articles where I did not handle the situations well or can be thought of as not having handled the situation well. The first one is (ironically given that Ikiroid brings up the article as a good example in the nomination) Death where early in my time on Wikipedia, before I think Ikiroid was heavily involved in the article I broke the 3 Reverts Rule with the editor in question (the only excuse I have is that the other editor went up to 8 reverts the same time period, but it's still unacceptable behavior). It was somewhat funny since I actually came to the article agreeing with the editor in question, and became convinced that the other group was correct. Eventually we constructed a compromise wording that seemed to leave most of the editors happy. The second extended dispute I should mention is that on Jonathan Sarfati, which led to the recently closed arbitration case for User:Agapetos_angel. While I was not mentioned in the final Arb Com decision, the Arb Com did warn other editors who were on my side about NPOV, and it is possible that the lack of warning for me was due merely to my being less active on the page and not due to making substantially less POV edits. I think that about covers anything. If anyone has any further questions, they are welcome to bring them up here, on this RfA's talk page, or on my own talk page (considering that I am almost notorious for asking a lot of questions on RfAs, I probably deserve the same treatment).

Question from Blnguyen

How do you respond to the perception that you may be a career bureaucrat/politician, given that you have been extremely prominent at WT:RFA, WP:AN/I, discussing other users' issues but thus far have only one substantial contribution on your userpage, given that the ultimate aim of Wikipedia is to build a comprehensive encyclopedia?
A That's a very good question and raises what is in my mind the most serious objection to my RfA that I was aware of prior to accepting(and I thank you for bringing it up on my talk page prior to the RfA). The situation is, in fact, worse than your phrasing suggests, since a substantial fraction of the article space edits I do have are in fact dealing with vandalism. I have four responses to these concerns. First, non-article space is an unfortunately necessary infrastructure to allow Wikipedia to function. If we lived in a perfect world, there would be no need for WP:AN/I or WP:RFA. However, we don't live in a perfect world and people do need to pay attention to those pages. People paying attention to those pages free up other editors to spend more time working on main space. Second, I pride myself on my ability to help informally mediate conflicts, especially with more problematic editors. Such conflicts often spill over in part to WP:AN/I and in general the fact that I am involved in many highly controvesial articles makes them often spill over to there(by a quick estimate these two constitute about a 2/3s of my edits to AN/I). Third, one could argue that a user who is as you put it a "career politician" is in fact a better candidate for adminship since he/she has a larger sample of edits that would be likely to show any signs of being a problematic user and that such a user (from their inherently political attitude) is in fact less likely to go rouge given their "political" standpoint. Fourth, I have not tried to be a career politician on Wikipedia, and frankly find the more political elements on WP:AN/I extremely distasteful. However, I do make comments and edits where I feel I can be of use. Sometimes that includes some of the more "political pages." I hope that clarifies my attitude towards the matter.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/JoshuaZ&oldid=1089065646"