Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joe Roe

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

Joe Roe

Final (169/2/7); Closed as successful by — xaosflux ^Talk at 16:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination

Joe Roe (talk · contribs) – I'm pleased to put forward Joe as a candidate. He's made substantial contributions in both article and project space, has a good working knowledge of policy, and has an excellent temperament and communication style. I first came across him at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of artifacts in Philippine history where he put forward some good arguments, to the extent that I decided to move the article into his userspace so it could be cleaned up, instead of deleting it. I've looked at some of his other AfDs, and again I've been impressed at the level of communication on discussions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Heywood and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. Douglas P. Hill, where he put forward useful insights, even though consensus didn't go his way. That's not to say Joe doesn't match consensus at AfD a lot; on the contrary, he frequently does, such as Pahargarh caves, where he rewrote the article from a one-line stub to stop it being deleted.

Elsewhere, Joe regularly answers questions at the

Conomination by TonyBallioni

It is my great pleasure to present Joe Roe to the community for consideration to become an administrator. Joe has been around in some capacity since 2005, and has become particularly active again since April 2016. His content work tends to focus on archeology, and he has created 60 new articles and helped to expand many more.

My interactions with Joe have primarily came from working at NPP and AfD: Joe is consistently one of the most level-headed voices in these areas, contributing not only in working on the front lines, but also to meta conversations about how to improve processes and moving Wikipedia forward. His comments in AfD discussions are always well thought out, policy-based, and insightful. Something that I also found very impressive while looking over his AfD Statistics was how high his accuracy was, especially considering that he has a relatively high percentage of keep votes, when most AfD's have historically trended delete.

While all of this is important, the thing that I care about most in an administrator is temperament, and I think Joe has it in spades. Having seen him interact with new editors and experienced editors in any number of contentious environments, I have never seen him act anyway other than kind, and I think this combined with his levelheaded demeanor and knowledge of policy will make him a true asset to the admin corps. I hope you will agree with me and join me in supporting his RfA. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Gratefully accepted. Many thanks to Tony and Ritchie for their encouragement, guidance, and kind words. – Joe (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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: I would like to use the admin tools to extend my work in two areas: AfD and NPP. I think that I've spent enough time at AfD to be able to close discussions reliably, particularly on the academics and educators and history deletion sorting lists. I usually try to focus my work at NPP on improving articles rather than deleting them, but I am confident that I have a strong enough understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines to handle CSD and PROD requests. The tools will also help with things like complicated moves and history merges which not infrequently come up at NPP and AfC.

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

A: I am most proud of my content creation work. In particular, last year I started a task force for improving our coverage of women in archaeology, which we've been making steady progress on. My work on that has included creating Margaret Ursula Jones, the first article I've brought up to GA, Crystal Bennett and Tatiana Warsher. Other than that, I would say my most substantial contributions have been to Akuntsu, indigenous territory, Sintashta culture, Vinča culture, hard and soft science, Vera Karelina, and Riwat.

The reason I got involved in behind-the-scenes areas like AfD and AfC was the opportunity to encourage new editors and branch out to topics I wouldn't otherwise have edited. I found

Ralph de Warenne, and Cheste hoard

as successful examples.

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: With content disputes, my approach is to keep the discussion focused on what policy and the sources say, regardless of any personal disagreements or conduct issues that might be present. I find this helps me shift my own perspective on a discussion away from "conflict" and towards problem-solving, and it often nudges others to do the same. For example, at Talk:Southern Levant, I offered a third opinion which I believe helped bring a long-running dispute to a consensus. When I have felt it necessary to comment on other editors' conduct (and I do think that needs to happen from time to time), I try to do so in as direct, polite, and non-judgemental a way possible. An example of that would be this ANI I recently filed.

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 question from Beyond My Ken

4. Have you been paid for any editing you have done?

A: No. I feel strongly that paid editing is damaging to the encyclopaedia and not consistent with the ethos of the project. – Joe (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from IP user

5. In your personal opinion, who does more disruptive editing to wiki? The IPs or the socks/sleepers? Note: I am a regular IP editor with dynamic IPs. I will ask one more question after you answer this one. 117.200.195.57 (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A: As sock-puppetry is by definition a deliberate attempt to deceive, I would say that it tends to be far more disruptive than people who simply choose not to log in. My interactions with IP editors have usually been positive. – Joe (talk) 08:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from

Power~enwiki

6. In what situations would you close an AfD discussion as soft delete?

A: Per the guidelines at

WP:REFUND applies". Otherwise, I would relist or close it as no consensus. – Joe (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Additional question from Lourdes

7. Hello Joe. As you would know, the

A7 criteria "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance". If you were an administrator who has to decide on this A7 candidate

, how would you have proceeded? Thanks.

A: The body text does not contain a claim of significance, but the title of the source cited does: the subject was "honored with [a] historical marker". I would therefore decline the A7. Following up on the reference, it outlines a decent case for notability, and Google and GBooks searches turn up a number of solid sources. So I would probably also expand the article a little and add additional sources to make that clearer. – Joe (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Vanamonde93

8. Greetings, Joe, and thanks for offering to serve as an administrator. In reviewing your contributions I came across Novoarkhanhelsk, for which you created the article by translating the page from Ukrainian Wikipedia. Are you satisfied with the last version you edited? Would you go about this differently if you created the page today, and if so, how? Vanamonde (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A: I'm not entirely satisfied with it, no. I would have liked to have chased down the references and made sure everything was inline-cited, as I would if I were writing an article from scratch. Unfortunately I don't think my access to the sources or my ability to read Ukrainian is good enough to do that myself. However, the Ukrainian article was at least partially referenced, and none of the sections that didn't have inline citations struck me as controversial or likely to be challenged. In leaving it there my thinking was that the translation was a better starting point for improvement than a bare stub, but I take the criticism that contributing inadequately referenced material is not good practice whatever the source/content. Novoarkhanhelsk was my first attempt at translating an article and the choice of topic was rather idiosyncratic (I've spent quite a lot of time there). In future I'd look for higher-quality (better referenced) source articles to translate, as I did in my next attempt, Vera Karelina. – Joe (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Feminist

9. All else being equal, should an article be treated any differently (e.g. when considering deletion, protection, peer review, etc.) if it were substantially edited directly by a paid editor? Assume that the editor has made a declaration on her user page that satisfies the WMF Terms of Use, and the article is of comparable quality to a

GA

.

A: I think that contributions by paid editors need to be treated with extra scrutiny in any venue. Their COI creates an

NPOV

. There seems to be a tendency for paid editors to reference bomb their articles to try and establish notability, especially if it has come through AfC (as new articles by paid editors should), therefore a detailed, source-by-source assessment of the level of coverage is needed. You also need to check that the sources are accurately represented—that the paid editor hasn't advertently or inadvertently put a "positive spin" on them―and do a thorough search for sources to make sure that positive and negative views of the subject are being given due weight. However, if as you say it's a GA-quality article with none of these problems, the outcome of the process shouldn't be different just because it was paid for.

That is at least how I would treat them under the current consensus on paid editing. If you are asking how I think they ought be treated, I personally would like to see policy tightened up in that regard. I'm keenly aware that the extra scrutiny I outlined above effectively means that

volunteers are subsidising paid editors by checking and improving their work for them. Currently, editors can try to counter that by opting out of doing that kind of work. For example, I choose not to review AfC submissions by paid editors, regardless of their quality, simply because I'm not interested in donating my time to someone else's commercial venture. I wouldn't peer review them either. But that approach isn't effective in deletion venues. Proposing/declining an article for CSD or PROD, or participating in an AfD, always entails some work, and sometimes quite a lot of work, in reviewing the article. So in order to maintain the encyclopaedia, volunteers end up being forced to spend their time either helping or cleaning up after paid editors. My view is that paid editing is an increasingly significant systemic bias in Wikipedia, and we need policy that can address it systemically. – Joe (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Additional question from

Linguist111

10. What do you think of the arguments put forward in this MfD discussion?

A: I can't see the content of the draft, but on the face of it I agree with the delete !voters. There's no reason to keep a draft that has been deleted and declined so many times, and which has no reasonable chance of improvement because its creator has a COI and has been blocked. Your own reasoning on the probability that the draft could be salvaged is thoughtful, and would have persuaded me to leave the door open if somebody else wanted to adopt and source it. But since that didn't happen, I think the delete close was the right call. I disagree with the keep !voter and don't think we should retain unencyclopaedic and unsalvageable material in draftspace simply because it is not yet eligible for a G13. – Joe (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from scope_creep

11. This is a follow on question from Feminist. Why do you say that paid editing is increasingly significant systemic bias in Wikipedia? Consider paid work has led to the Gutenberg Bible, the roof of the Sistine Chapel, the Mona Lisa and innumerable other artistic works, worthy of artistic merit, e.g. David. Why is Wikipedia different in this instance? We are in a period where the internet is still new, and these types of paid editing are necessarily a product of the internet environment where we live, where companies and other entities, are driven by marketing and branding. Lots of areas of WP need continual addressing, e.g. backlog areas, which is difficult and problematic for a volunter workforce in the long term. How does that reflect on your answer to Feminist and the above. scope_creep (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A: I realise that this is a contentious area. There are

neutrally-written encylopaedia. – Joe (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Additional question from

Darreg

12. As a frequent !voter on AFDs, who is usually more on the inclusionist side, one thing I have noticed is that it is easy to vote delete on an AFD without a reasonable rationale (or just typing fails GNG allover the place), and no one will see issues with it, but when an editor votes keep, all hell will loose bound until he proves it to the satisfaction of AFD participants. There is this inert feeling among Wikipedians that an editor that votes delete often is more likely to understand notability guidelines better than one that votes keep. All these sets a repulsive precedence that discourages good faith editors, hoping to vote keep from participating in an AFD discussion. Do you agree with all I've said? How will you as an admin create a balance to this?

A: I can't say I've had the same experience with AfD, no. I am someone who goes there with the intention of !voting keep as often as I can too; but if an article ends up at AfD, assuming the nominator

did their job right, at least one editor has given it a detailed look over and concluded that it should not be kept. So to me it makes sense that making the case for keep is a bit more of an uphill battle. Fortunately, in my experience, if you make that case well then the vast majority of discussants are receptive to it. I do share your frustration with 'pile on' !votes that don't include a reasonable rationale – whether they're keeps or deletes. In closing AfDs as an admin, I would give them little to no weight when assessing the consensus. – Joe (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Additional question from

Darreg

13. As an administrator, having a good temperament is never enough. The community requires admins to be able to make sharp decisions in difficult situations. In the last few months, there have been a number of dedicated editors, with no conduct issues that seem to have lost faith with the way the project is run due to the direction in the discretion of functionaries, probably because it didn't go thier way. As an admin, if you're to encourage [to remain] a genuinely dedicated editor that have decided to completely retire because of incidents with functionaries, when I say incidents, I mean closures not going their way. What would you say to such editor to make him/her remain commited?

A: I'm sorry, I don't entirely understand what you're asking here. I must have missed the incidents that you're alluding to. I do think it's very important, if you want to be a long-term contributor to this project, to get away from the mentality that AfDs (or any discussions) are battles to be won or lost. I can certainly think of many discussions that haven't "gone my way" over the years. Some convinced me to change my mind, others I still think I was in the right in. Either way, you just have to accept that it happens. We are a project governed by consensus and nobody will ever be in agreement with the consensus 100% of the time. If I came across an editor that was very bothered by a particular close, that's what I'd try to get across to them. – Joe (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Inter&anthro

14. Hi Joe Roe, in your opinion when (if at all) is it appropriate to use WP:Ignore all rules in Articles for deletion discussions and other discussions on Wikipedia?

A: I've been trying to think of concrete examples of when I've invoked

WP:IAR is most useful for cutting through arbitrary procedural details when the outcome is uncontroversial and commonsensical. Beyond that, I see it as an important safety valve that stops us turning into a full-blown bureaucracy, but when you have mature and flexible policies, it shouldn't be necessary to invoke it all that often. – Joe (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

Support

1. Support as nominator Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support as conominator. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support - I'm finding what I look for in an administrator dropping rapidly from "high hopes" to "please just be an okay person". In this case though, my opinion of Joe Roe rockets past "okay" and settles around "deeply impressed". I'm impressed at their content, their clue and their civility. An obvious candidate from two experienced nominators --
   to explain) 17:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Support Some very nice writing done at Margaret Ursula Jones. Mkdw ^talk 17:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support - Adequate tenure and contributions, decent shape of the pie chart, clean block log, no indications of assholian tendencies. Seeking tools for AfD closing is a +1 for me, there are too many non-administrative closes. So how is that win-loss rate opining at AfD, that's the big question, isn't it? Voting Keep or Speedy Keep, he is 98 wins and 1 loss, voting Delete he is 123-10 (omitting Merge and Redirect results, which can be random). That's pretty fucking good work, pardon my French, especially doing that well with Keep votes in a Deletion-oriented venue. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC) Count corrected: Carrite (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support - Generally, for what I said at his ORCP. This is an editor who has experience dealing with content and provides in-depth and reflective comments at AFD -- even if it is not always keeping pace with the rest of the herd.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Collegial, able, measured candidate, who gives no cause for concern.
   Neil S. Walker (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
   ]
8. Support: Ability to maintain one of the best temperaments consistently in contentious situations is beyond impressive. Alex Shih (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support - no concerns. I am also very unconcerned with finding 3 cases of bad AfD votes or nominations out of 366. Can we please stop focusing on tiny mistakes, and evaluate the editor as a whole? For everyone one of those AfD errors, there are over 100 good contributions. Admins should be held to a high standard, but not perfection. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Has been around since 2005 and well versed in policy has created over 80 articles and 93.5% of AfD's were matches as of now.Clear
    Netpositive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
11. Support While we haven't always agreed, and while opinionated, Joe is willing to compromise. A great record at AfD, and with a reasonably red (if sparse) CSD log. CSD and PROD aren't as necessary as they were in the days before ACTRIAL, but AfD could always use more help. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Moderate person, that can "administrate" himself. Maybe, will be a good enough as an administrator for another--Noel baran (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Why the hell not?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support- No reason to oppose the candidate, and every reason to support the candidate. Cocohead781 (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 20:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support, I do not see any issues at the moment.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support - Would be a fine administrator. Hummerrocket (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support per nom, and because he has created a reasonable number of articles and some OK content. Dysklyver 21:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support - I've worked with Joe a number of times and think he would do great. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support based on the reputations of the co-nominators and the nominee's answer to my question. His percentage of edits to mainspace could be higher, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support on the strength of the nominatorswho I have great confidence in. Legacypac (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support - (
    LIR ^Gobble _Gobble 🦃 ^Sign 22:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
23. Support - no red flags, has good qualifications.
    parlez moi 23:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
24. Support -- good contributions and suitable temperament; would be a value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support- experienced editor and will be a good addition to the group of admins. FITINDIA 01:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
26. Yes. Polite, helpful, and an asset to the project. To create and take Margaret Ursula Jones to GA in less than a month is pretty good going. SilkTork (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support per nom. --Joshualouie711^talk 03:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support, looks fine to me. Good luck! -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support- likely net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support Useful contributor to the project, will do well with the tools. Spencer^T♦C 03:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support I think I have never interacted with Joe before. But I have seen his work regularly, mostly through NPP/R. Joe has a clear understanding of the policies, and guidelines. He is polite, and level headed. I see no issues. Some would say is CSD log short (one editor in neutral section has raised this doubt), but Joe has shown his understanding of deletion policies through other contributions. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support
    missfortune 10:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
33. Support Don't know the lad, but what has been written and answered seems promising. A couple of silly mistakes at AfD but I think they have been pointed out; he can take note and learn from those complaints. My name is not dave (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support. Don't think I've worked with him directly, but I've seen him around. His Answers and nominations give a good indication that he is fit for the role. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support - I see no issues. Seems to be a highly qualified candidate. Best of luck. Patient Zero^talk 11:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support Not a username I'm familiar with, but having done a bit of research, that's to my shame. Looks like an excellent candidate, I have no hesitation in supporting. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support - No issues here, looks pretty qualified for the job! Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 14:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support - I like his article contributions, and reading through the previous comments I'm glad to see there are no glaring issues with his work in the past. If there's only one issue we can find in all the years he's had editing here (that one AfD which imo he is justified for) I take that as a positive sign that he's an all around good editor. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support A cursory look at their editing history did not turn up anything that would give me pause (or worse). JR looks qualified and I trust the judgement of the nominators. No red flags + Clue = net positive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support: I don't see any issues and can be a highly trusted editor. Good luck with the mop. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 15:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support Any concerns I had have been taken care of by the candidate's answer to my question. Vanamonde (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support! (edit conflict)About a week ago I was looking at something you said, and happened to hoverlink your name, where I was surprised to see you weren't an admin. I appreciate your work at the teahouse and help desk, where I believe you have helped me a couple of times. While I have no problem with you planning to stick to AFD and NPP, I do wish you would get a bit more experience in counter vandalism (the first, last, and only time you reported someone to AIV was in 2011). Enjoy mopping, L3X1 (distænt write) 17:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]
44. Support First came across him here. Although he expressed rather impassioned view, it shows he has the 'integrity of the project' at heart, and that's good quality of an admin in my view.  — Ammarpad (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Strong candidate. The nominations (and the nominators) are persuasive. --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support because Wikipedia needs more active administrators, and this user is a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 18:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support - I'm not sure if I've ever encountered Joe before, but I get the sense that he can be trusted with the responsibilities that come with being an administrator. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support Good answers to questions, no concerns. South Nashua (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support: Although some editors have found concerns, they are not enough for me to not support this. —
    Help! 20:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
52. Support Sensible deportment, balanced experience, logical answers. Lourdes 20:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support. Seems level-headed from my interactions with them, and appears to have a good handle on assessing consensus and deletion rationale at AfD.
    talk) 21:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
54. Support. I have a very high opinion of both of the nominators, and everything I see here makes me trust the candidate. I take particular note of the fact that, when presented with criticism of his positions at (just a few) AfDs, he accepted that he had made mistakes and did not try to dig in his heels. I never expect admins (or anyone else) to never make mistakes, but I expect them to be open to changing their minds. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support. On a cursory look through contributions, I see lots of good work, plus the ability to admit mistakes. —Kusma (t·c) 22:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support Why not? -FASTILY 22:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support. I have never interacted with "Joe", however his answers to the questions submitted are very good and gives me the feeling that "Joe" is very sincere. "Joe" may have committed some minor mistakes while editing in the past, so what? haven't we all? We learn through our mistakes and learning is a continuous life process. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support More admins is always a good thing. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support Why not? Double sharp (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support I spent some time looking through his AFD input, his talk page archive, and his contributions early, middle, and recently in his editing career. I looked at some of the ninety-something articles he created. I was impressed with his writing, his wiki-gnoming, and his knowledge of archaeology. I found two instances where another editor was angry about some edit he had done,(and done appropriately) and he responded to their angry screeds by cited the policies and reasoning behind his edits, explaining clearly why his edit was called for, and worked to calm the other person down. I think he will be a valuable addition to the ranks of administrators. Edison (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  00:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support eminently qualified content creator who will be a clear net positive with the tools.
    Lepricavark (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
64. Support two bad AfD votes (out of over 300) in the past year is not a reason to oppose, in fact that accuracy level is a reason to support.
    π, ν) 01:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
65. Support Professionalism is critical for adminship, and Joe Roe has a record of civility. Natureium (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support Great editor!
    Lockerson (talk · contribs) 04:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    User's first edit. —Kusma (t·c) 17:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

67. Support Excellent content work. A couple of blips dug up below, but they don't worry me too much (per Carrite & others above). Johnbod (talk) 04:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
68. Strong support - Excellent word, both in content creation and admin related things. Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support will do good work as an admin. Net positive. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support - This editor has made 300 !votes to AFD (and might I add has 90% where matched result) so opposing over 1 or 2 !votes is IMHO silly - Ofcourse they're not going to be bang on perfect (who is?) - Like all admins here Joe will probably make a few mistakes too and as I said no one's perfect, anyway I'm not seeing any concerns so as such Easy Support. –Davey2010^Talk 12:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support No concerns. Katie^talk 12:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support, experienced editor, excellent to see more assistance in afd and afc. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
73. I disagree with the candidate's view that the policy regarding paid editing should be tightened, but it's no reason to deny adminship. He would be able to put the admin toolset to good use. feminist 13:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Experienced editor. Create some more talk /w/index.php pages! Good job. Hope you get the tools. --Bambenekcd1 (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Vote from indeffed

    ^unEins^uno 17:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

    ]

74. Support Won't break anything. Harrias ^talk 15:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support. Question over Charlotte Devaney marginal. Looks sensible. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
76. Weak support (moved from neutral) The reason I brought up the
    WP:NBASKETBALL. So this was a double-mistake by the candidate worth considering when judging his qualifications. That said, he did acknowledge his mistake and moderated his approach, both qualities one should look for in an admin. This, combined with trusting the nominators and finding nothing else concerning in his contributions, leads me to change my !vote to support. "Weak", however, because while I think the candidate will make a good addition to the admin corps, he did not really do much work in the areas CSD and PROD he wants to work in and thus it's hard to anticipate how he will handle the tools in these areas. Regards SoWhy 18:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
77. Support, clearly would be an asset to have the mop in the hands of this editor. bd2412 T 19:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support, very impressed, would make an excellent admin. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support, if hes willing to do the job, good luck to him. Ceoil (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
80. Inclined to support. No one is perfect, and a couple of CSD errors and some AfD votes that didn't go the consensus direction aren't enough to oppose. Participation is balanced, and heavy on the content side compared to many candidates, and also shows enough involvement in the WP and WT namespaces to indicate probable awareness of policies, what they say, and how policy works. Candidate is level-headed, and I don't see any reasons for concern. Overall, both productive and usually on the right side of policy interpretation. The answers to the questions above are satisfactory to me (though they're mostly about the same thing, and are not particularly difficult ones). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 23:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support Seems capable. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support I don't believe I've had the opportunity to meet Joe, but after reviewing Joe's contributions and other information, I believe Joe would do well with the tools. Solid track record with AfDs, edits and contributions. As many above have stated, Joe seems to be well mannered and even tempered in many environments. Best Wishes. Operator873^CONNECT 01:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support - NPP experience is a plus! Level-headed secures it for me. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support. I wasn't originally going to vote, but then I saw his extremely thoughtful answer to the questions on paid editing. That is exactly the thought process we should be looking for in admins
    talk) 04:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
85. Support Joe Roe is a very good content creator and a very good participant at AfD and the Teahouse. Perhaps Joe is a bit more forceful in opposing paid editing than I am at this time, but his answer to Q9 is so clearly and persuasively written that I am convinced that he will be fair and effective in dealing with paid editing. We need more administrators like Joe Roe. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support. Welcome aboard! -- œ^™ 10:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
87. Strong Support. I'd love this user as an administrator.Bingobro (Chat) 12:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support As others have said, Joe is a good content editor, and although there are a tiny percentage of blips I don't see those nearly as important as the good work and attitude he's shown. I also have no doubt that he will learn from the comments made here. Doug Weller talk 15:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support. Happy to support an experienced and sound editor. Tim riley talk 16:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
90. Full support: Words like "excellent temperament and communication style", echoed with comments of "temperament, and I think Joe has it in spades", is an admirable quality Wikipedia needs. I don't see the accolades reputiated. None of us, new or not, really wants to be hit with "assholian tendencies". I think "Mr. Joe" gave excellent answers to the questioned asked including honesty concerning paid editors. Any that have to work know that none of us get paid to do a bad job. Not all paid editors adhere to
    "put edits through peer review instead of editing articles directly" and I agree "extra scrutiny" is a mandate. The ANI was spot on, and he admits mistakes. At this time there are ninty-six other comments with only two that are opposed (one of those questionable) and one that is a very concerned but neutral. The comments in this support section are evidence this editor has a very high degree of community as well as self-standards to uphold, and I think he will do just that. Otr500 (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
91. Support for a candidate with a good balance of content work, temperament and clue who shares my reservations about paid editing. Miniapolis 18:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support Seems even-keeled enough to suit me. ~Awilley (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support - LGTM, as the kids say. (
    Lalalalllla7) 20:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
94. Support Net positive, absolutely. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support An articulate and fair-minded participant in discussions; has a high proportion of AFD "keep" votes and nearly all those articles do get kept: Noyster (talk), 22:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support per nom. Michipedian (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support per noms. And 14,500+ edits is plenty enough experience for me.Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support - Even though you were correct on policy, you were a little rude to me re: an unsourced change I found. However, your contributions and understanding of policy shows you're well-qualified. I'm especially fond of your media contributions. Looking forward to seeing more of your work. - GS ⋙ ☎ 00:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support As a net positive. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support
     WP:100 I see no issues with this editor. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
     ]
101. Support - both history and responses to questions show somebody worthy of the Mop-and-Bucket. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
102. I see nothing to make me think that the candidate would abuse the tools SQL^{Query me!} 01:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support - fully qualified candidate; and nominated by no less two admins for whom I have great respect for their work on both RfA and NPP. The two 'Oppose' votes are entirely without substance. One clearly does not know what they are talking about, while nobody, not even me, gets every AfD vote or closure right - but this cited instance was a perfectly legitimate and I would quite possibly have deleted this via G4 even with the ability to view the deleted version. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support - Happy to support. Looks like an excellent candidate. Thank you for volunteering. CThomas³ (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
105. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support Seems competent and capable. Net positive. -- Begoon 06:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support - Glad to give my support. This user will definitely make an excellent admin.CAPTAIN RAJU^{▲Bold text} 07:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support. No cause for concern, seems like a net positive as an admin. I also appreciate their answer to Q6 as the person who advanced the proposal to overhaul that section. The answer is frankly better than many current admins would give. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support: a good, well-rounded content contributor who should make a fine admin. Jonathunder (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support: Those opposing are focusing on a couple of mistakes, which everyone (even admins) is entitled to make from time to time. Seems like a safe pair of hands. WaggersTALK 10:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support: Well rounded candidate, good posture and enough experience to get the admin tools. Fbergo (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support - appears to be a great candidate for the job, and his responses clearly show his ability to keep on task and not take things personally. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 14:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
113. Support - WP:HERE, WP:NETPOSITIVE, WP:CIVIL, WP:CLUE, plus candidate understands WP:CONSENSUS. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support Users like Joe who contribute regularly to the Teahouse should do well with the communication responsibilities of adminship. Airbornemihir (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
115. Support. I have collaborated with Joe over Southern Levant as two previously uninvolved editors invited to resolve a heated situation. Joe and I disagreed on some details but I found him quite sensible and quite pleasant to work with. I will be happy to see him pick up the admin buttons. Deryck C. 16:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support, based on review; note: I hope they will work to increase article content creation and not just stubs, for the most part. Kierzek (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support easy one Equineducklings (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
118. Support for his ability to admit mistakes, for his thoughtful answers to the questions, and for the unreasonableness of the oppose votes. Sigh!, gone are the days when a good person could be voted into adminship without silly unsubstantiated accusations. — Sebastian 18:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support Happy to support - Mop please! Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} ^(Whisper...) 18:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support excellent candidate, no concerns whatsoever. Rentier (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support no reason to oppose. Banedon (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
122. Support No concerns from me. A review of their responses here and editing history shows a clueful and level-headed editor who will make a fine admin.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
123. Support Comprehensive answers demonstrate communication skills, is able to admit fault, has an established reputation as a valuable member of the Wikipedia userbase who is clearly ready for the toolset that will enable even more positive contributions. Jasphetamine (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
124. Support Can't find any reason to object. We need more sysops at AFD. James (^talk/_contribs) 01:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
125. Support - Good answers to questions, especially on speedy and AFD decisions.Danaman5 (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
126. Support A candidate that _________ couldn't find a reason to oppose? Let's just IAR and make him a bureaucrat. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
127. Support I've seen them at work at Indo-European migrations related articles; solid editor. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
128. Support Can Joe be trusted with the tools? I think so. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
129. Support I endorse the candidate. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
130. Support. I can't really say any more than all those people above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
131. Support. Per noms, and Joe's thoughtful answers to the questions. I believe he will be a net positive for the admin corps. –FlyingAce^✈hello 12:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
132. Support. Carrite sums it up well.
     Kablammo (talk
     )
133. Support I don't see anything here that makes me think Joe would act poorly with the tools. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
134. Support; Everything that could be said has been...TJH2018talk 16:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
135. Support - Seems a level-headed individual who can be trusted with the tools. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
136. Support No reason to say no. -The one, the only, Editor760 (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
137. Support Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (blab) 19:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
138. Support, responses to questions show a fair degree of cluefulness. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
139. Support - probably won't delete the main page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
140. Support - There are areas for improvement, but none that amount to problems. GMG^talk 20:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
141. Support: A great candidate! - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
142. Support - Responses to the questions leave me confident that this user will make a good administrator. Swarm ♠ 20:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
143. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
144. Support - Experienced. Qualified. Likely to be a plus with admin tools. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
145. Support - No concerns with this candidate. -- Dane ^talk 01:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
146. Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
147. Support : Pile on. No experience with this editor, appears to be a positive influence. I prefer when an editor does make a mistake they have no qualms about admitting it and seeing their own part in the error, as this person seems to do. Perfectly reasonable answers. Happy to have another qualified mop-wielder. BusterD (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
148. Support Almost missed this. I support based on his response in the AfDs mentioned by the nominator, and his answers to questions. I'm sure this user will make a good sysop. Regards,
     talk • mail) 04:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
     ]
149. Support Experienced, has clue, works well with others, good answers, good understanding of policy, no negatives. Good temperament, civil, which is very important for an administrator. Another administrator working at AfD will be a positive. Trustworthiness definitely established. Donner60 (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
150. Support Coming at this a bit late, about a candidate i don't seem to have run across previously; nevertheless, the opposes are unconvincing, the answers to questions are convincing, and there is no reason i can see that flipping the bit for this candidate would be an error. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 09:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
151. Support Per above.
     talk) 11:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
     ]
152. Support. Inatan (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
153. Support Good editor, convincing answers, trustworthy.
     talk) 14:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
     ]
154. Support I don't see any problems, appears trustworthy and beneficial. Gap9551 (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
155. Support, no reason not to. GAB^gab 16:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
156. Support This is the kind of person we need as an administrator. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
157. Support per work at afc. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
158. Support - an 89% accuracy on users AFD record shows that they knowledgeable enough to be trusted with the adminship tools. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
159. Support - Supporting for agreeable stance towards paid editing and experience Pagliaccious (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
160. Support - the AfD-incident based opposes hold little weight in my view, since they show a couple of mistakes but nowhere near a pattern of such mistakes. I will mention for the record that the answer to Q5 leaves me a bit underwhelmed - it nominally answers the question, but you wouldn't answer "which is worse, ice cream or the plague" by my interactions with ice cream have usually been positive; that was the time to cite
     WP:IPHUMAN or make a paraphrase of it. Also, I have a different philosophy on the paid editing problem - maybe that is because as a Help Desk/Teahouse regular, I am subject to sampling bias: I see trees of paid editors trying to obey by the policies and benefitting the encyclopedia by rapidly bringing up company name changes, relocations etc., and maybe I miss a forest of undercover POV-pushing - but I infer from Q9 that they intend to treat paid articles fairly at NPP, which is all that I need to support fully the mop-granting. For the record, I totally disagree with Q9's answer where it implies that references from paid editor drafts should not be assumed to support the claims they are inlined to - I accept that newbies' articles should be scrutinized for all kinds of fault, and I accept that paid drafts should be treated as more likely to bend the RS guidelines and whatnot than a random newbie article, but I do not think paid drafts should be assumed to be more fact-challenged than a random newbie article. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 19:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
     ]
161. Support - No issues that I can see. "Show me a man who has never made a mistake, and I will show you one who has never tried anything." SethWhales ^talk 20:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
162. Support Good candidate, no concerning issues. Best of luck! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
163. Support, I don't see any evidence that this user would misuse the tools. Opposes are unconvincing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]
164. Support Don't know much about the editor but I like the answers to the questions - always a good thing - and the strong noms. --regentspark (comment) 02:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
165. Support Impressive AfD stats. --I am One of Many (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
166. Support I'd never heard of Joe before, but after looking into his stats and stuff and reading his responses to the questions here, I've come away very impressed. I don't see any reasonable potential for intentional misuse of the tools, and I believe that handing Joe Roe the mop will result in a net benefit to the project overall. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
167. Support Had a look at Joe's data and responses, seems good. AfD shows he has a clue, seems civil. Hand him the mop. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
168. Support--We have not crossed our paths before (except in an AfC review case, days prior to the launch of this RFA) but on reviewing the contributions of the user, he seems to be a fairly level-headed and reasonable pedian with ahigh competence level.So, why not?Winged Blades ^Godric 11:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
169. Support. Rzuwig^► 12:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]