Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joshbuddy

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

Joshbuddy

Final (88/15/4) ended 20:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Joshbuddy (talk · contribs) – Joshbuddy has been all around Wikipedia for quite a while now. People may know me for Tawkerbot2 but Joshbuddy was the mastermind who came up with most of the idea, I just got to handle the talk page madness (the nice rough start we had). Joshbuddy has been around AfD's, mediated a few disputes, made some great contribs and could use the tools. With no further ramblings, I hereby nominate Joshbuddy for adminship and I hope you'll raise your edit button and join me :) -- Tawker 20:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, side note, one of the main reasons for this nom is, Tawkerbot2 is using a heck of a lot of fully protected checkpages now, and it makes it rather hard for Joshbuddy to update without the edit protected pages button :o -- Tawker 05:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing in a co-nom, not that Joshbuddy particularly needs it :)--Shanel § 20:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, sure I accept! joshbuddytalk 20:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Strong Support - as nominator -- Tawker 20:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support - Pending answers to questions, although I imagine he would make a wonderful admin. Good luck with it!
    HawkerTyphoon 20:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Edit: Having seen answers, changed support ot strong[reply
    ]
  3. Support. I've talked to the user on the antivandalism channels, very polite and thorough! ~Kylu (u|t) 20:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support no question on my mind. -- Drini 21:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong support, of course. --Rory096 21:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --Ixfd64 22:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Would make a great admin. Wizrdwarts (T|C|E) 22:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per Wizrdwarts. --Shizane 22:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Convinced won't abuse admin tools. See also
    Petros471 22:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  10. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 22:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per below. — Jun. 19, '06 [22:36] <freak|talk>
  12. Support, I've seen nothing but good contribs from Josh. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 23:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support a little bit too low on the edit counts, but for the developers we obviously should have different requirements. If he could do something with the open proxies it would be great (do you need check user privileges for this?) abakharev 23:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per nom. Kimchi.sg 23:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Pepsidrinka supports. 23:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong Support per nom. G.He 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support A great user. Perfect for admin. Mr. Turcottetalk 00:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support --
    Chat | Contribs) 00:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  19. Support per Tawker. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 00:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support! Jude (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per freakofnurture. ~ PseudoSudo 01:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support per nom. Crazynas 01:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per nom, and per 10 barnstars on User:Joshbuddy (!). Like the new sig much better. Λυδαcιτγ 01:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Joshbuddy Support. I'm not sure what that is exactly, but apparently I forgot to vote when I co-nommed. Gooooo Joshbuddy!--Shanel § 03:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. More candidates like this one please!TM Support ++Lar: t/c 03:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. User looks good all around, with some solid article contribs.
    Voice-of-All 03:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  27. Support, doesn't commit the heinous sin of making jocular comments in RFAs.--
    T 03:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  28. Support — The King of Kings 03:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - as per nomination Nephron  T|C 04:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Strong Support to a great Wikipedian who would make a great admin!--Sean gortertalk with me 04:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support; more editorial/policy experience would be nice. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-20 07:21Z
  32. Hell Yeah! per all above; and for all the good work he's done with the bots. --Nearly Headless Nick 07:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per nom. DarthVader 07:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. 'Yes.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong support. Edit count: Sure Josh only has a couple thousand edits, but he wrote Tawkerbot2; thus, I think Tawkerbot2's 109,953 edits should be included in his edit count. Civil, sensible, and knowledgeable--he's everything you could ever hope for in an admin candidate. Just please, for the love of God, change your signature =D.
    AmiDaniel (talk) 08:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  36. Strong Support Apart from all thats been said already above, the bot is more than ample proof that he's a responsible editor (though I believe we should give him one of Tawkerbot's functions also: the big STOP button :) -
    Glen 08:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  37. super duper support joshbuddy in my experince is responsible thoughtful and knowlegable on wikipedia, just the kind of pepole we want to give adminship!!
    Benon 14:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  38. Support, even though you don't show the motivation required to hunt down and slaughter innocent chickens. :P -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 14:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Cleared for... adminship! User seems to have a good understand of how WP and, more specifically, how reverting vandalism works per his involvement with TB2, among other things. Off to the janitorial closet you go! --Pilot|guy 15:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, valuable contributor. Roy A.A. 16:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. I thought he was an admin already! --GeorgeMoney T·C 16:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support everything has been said. --WillMak050389 17:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Busy, thoughtful, civil etc etc. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Writing Vandalbot took a lot more effort and know-how than getting a few thousand article edits anyway. --Cyde↔Weys 18:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Strong support. 'nuff said.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support A great user. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - if he's writing bots, he can probably be trusted with the tools BigDT 23:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Strong Support - Tawkerbot2... hoopydinkConas tá tú? 00:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support per nom. BryanG(talk) 01:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support--Jay(Reply) 01:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. wat's sup 03:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  52. Support With the devolpment of Tawkerbot, he must have some experience and some knowledge of everything. I think the candidate will be fine and will use the mop and tools well in dealing with vandalism, and other dirty work. Yanksox (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support because it's not that big a deal. Since he's an involved and conscientious programmer, I know he'll have the attention to detail and understanding of cause and effect that will head off any abuse of tools. Aguerriero (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Merovingian {T C @} 07:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. From what I've seen I trust this guy. Vildricianus 18:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support per above. Nevermind2 18:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support per above. --digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 22:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. A TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE FUCK YEAH SUPPORT! (per Tawker). Sasquatch t|c 22:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Seems a good user. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Sure - Just be nice and contribute some effort to the Wikipedia namespace. OK? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. "At least a year"? Why wait? —BorgHunter (talk) 06:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Joe I 07:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support responsible, committed and capable editor, with nothing to indicate admin tools will not be used in the same way. Tyrenius 12:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support, but only on the account that Joshbuddy will start using the tools on obvious things only, but as he gets accustomed to more Wikipedia policy he can use the tools more. I trust him though, so its a support from me. —Mets501 (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Strong Support seems very capable, and a fair
    wikipedian. We could do with more of this kind of editor becoming an admin! Abcdefghijklm 17:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  66. Seen this one around, no doubts for me. Support. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support per
    WP:0FA. Without him recent changes patrol would be quite a hell. --mboverload@ 00:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  68. support --W.marsh 02:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. Per Tawker's nomination. Эйрон Кинни (t) 03:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support The writer of Tawkerbot2 and they still oppose on editcountitis. Sigh. Master of Puppets Giant Enemy Crab! 03:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    *sigh* --mboverload@ 04:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Not only based on Tawkerbot2, Joshbuddy will clearly be an asset as an admin - Peripitus (Talk) 04:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. The oppose comments just don't pursuade me otherwise. Agent 86 04:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Strong support. I have worked with this user in the past and he has proven to be kind, thoughtful and co-operative. Not to mention Tawkerbot2. Brisvegas 09:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support, it's all gravy.
    type 10:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  75. Strong Support; deserves a Knighthood for Tawkerbot2. CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support per all of the above. Anger22 18:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Agathoclea 21:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Anonymous__Anonymous 21:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support definitely -- Samir धर्म 03:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Quality Wikipedian; good answers to questions. No worries, will be good admin. FloNight talk 06:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Strong Support. Co-coding the best anti-vandal bot on this fine enyclopedia is good enough in my books, and I could find another twenty reasons Will (message me!) 10:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. My God, I was almost positive I'd already ... Supported per Tawker.
    (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  83. Support good candidate --rogerd 00:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support AnnH ♫ 21:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support per response to question below. JoshBuddy seems to considerably care about the politeness of his bot. : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. SUPPORT!!!! -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 01:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support - per comment below. Lucy 02:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support. Active, helpful user. One of the most persistent FAC submitters I've ever dealt with. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Weak Oppose While he has a good record, he hasn't been around for a very long time. I like my admins to have at least a year under their belts.
    Nezzadar 00:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Changed to Very Strong Oppose when I discovered that he is not involved in any Wikiprojects.
    Nezzadar 19:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The only wikiproject I am currently involved with is Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses joshbuddy, talk 19:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, TB2 is pratically a WikiProject unto itself. Do you want me to go ahead and stick it under the project namespace? I think thats bigger project involvement than most of us (admins included) - as for the time factor, if anyone wants to go and call me a "bad" admin go ahead, but I'd like to remind people that I was less than 4 months when I was promoted and I don't think anyone can say I'm bad. Experience is a relative thing, and editcounts and time between edits don't always mean experience -- Tawker 19:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is a wikiproject, label it. Be happy as a programmer, because if you let the power get to you, your level of skill can cause massive chaos. That chaos is even more dangerous if you an editor with editor powers. A bad bot could crash wikipedia for weeks, even if it only is active for a single hour.
    Nezzadar
    Changed to Regular Oppose (Under Peer Pressure) I'm sorry I was so harsh
    Nezzadar 19:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Nezzadar does have a point, Josh only started editing lots from 22 January 2006. But is it really enough for an oppose?--Andeh 18:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  2. Oppose. I'd like to see a year of experience, as well. Also, I'd like more namespace edits. SushiGeek 03:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Unhappy Oppose I trust Tawker, but you're well below my amorphous editcountitis standards. -
    talk/email 03:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Gee, I thought edicountis was a bad thing :o - Thanks for the trust though. May we assume the above is an "weak" oppose? -- Tawker 04:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    After many hours of close inspection, I have concluded that we may assume the above is an "unhappy" oppose. -Splash - tk 05:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you include his bots, he has well over 200,000 edits (about 222,228 as of toolserver lag). Still not enough? ;) --Rory096 05:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, but did the Bot impart to Josh all the policy it had learned while participating in 50,000 AfD discussions? </facetiousness> -
    talk/email 12:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    But then again, is it necessary for an admin to close AfD's - I think it was Curps who said it doesn't take a PhD to revert clearcut vandalism. Joshbuddy will be a bit of a specialist admin and we all know he will ask for help if he has a question rather than doing something out of process -- Tawker 19:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - fails my criteria.
    NSLE 05:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  5. Weak Oppose he's been here about the same amount of time I have, he's got roughly the same amount of edits as me (I think) I just think he needs to spend a little more time here at wiki until I can throw him a good ol' support vote. Your signature is a bit over the top. :-( Keep editing and have another RfA in a few months and I'll be happy to support you, the above will too, probably. ;-)--Andeh 06:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose There are too few wiki-space edits for me to have confidence the user understands wiki-process. Xoloz 15:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Currently doesn't have the amount of all-round involvement I look for. --Wisden17 16:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose great editor, though I would like to seem some more edits and experience--TBCTaLk?!? 18:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak Oppose. More Wikipedia namespace edits will be better.--Jusjih 22:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak Oppose. While Tawkerbot2 has conquered a good portion of vandalism, I'm uncomfortable because of lack of participation mentioned. Joshbuddy has little experience with mechanics of the system, it's not all about vandalism directly, issues like semi/protection, blocking, and merges, and the different areas of deletion take practice which comes from involvement. It pains me to vote this way because of what the bot has achieved, but I don't think the user needs a mop and keys. Teke 04:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Wiki-space participation is crucial for administrators because they need to be familiar with the Wikipedia policy process due to their role in interpreting and enforcing policy.—Perceval 00:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Opposition on wheels look, only 2000 edits, 3.148 (close to pi) edits per page. Not enough edits, even if he can write a neat bot, he doesn't have sufficient edits. Also, that's a lot of edits/page. MichaelBillington 01:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just out of curiosity, you mention 3.148 average edits per page ... do you think that's too low or too high? --Cyde↔Weys 02:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he thinks that's a lot. ("Also, that's a lot of edits/page" seems to give it away) --Rory096 04:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Too high. I say : use the preview button. MichaelBillington 08:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you take a look at his contribs, he just likes editing a few pages. There are no "typo" or "formatting" double edits I could see in the first 500 contribs or so. -- Tawker 14:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, he's obsessed with Jehovah's Witnesses, and just edits it a LOT, but doesn't do anything that could be avoided with the preview button. --Rory096 00:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See [1]. It's just that one article that brings it way up. --Rory096 02:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose see
    Petros471 Anonymous__Anonymous 21:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  13. Oppose some of his edits that I looked at seemed to be arbitary or POV. --HResearcher 04:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please continue. Diffs? --Rory096 05:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per SushiGeek. --Ardenn 03:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per Xoloz and most of the concerns raised above.
    Talk) 12:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Neutral
  1. Your signature makes me want to leap down the DSL line and do something drastic. robchurch | talk 00:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what, you're completely right. My sig is dumb. Multiple line heights drive me nuts. I don't know why I ever thought it was cool. I've since fixed it. joshbuddy, talk 00:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Seems to have the skills and mindset to be an admin, but the low Wikipedia namespace editcount makes me hesitate. The best way to get an intimate knowledge of policy is to fight down in the trenches in AfD, CfD, or something like it. AdamBiswanger1 04:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. Great bot, but your own edit count leaves some things to be desired, I'm afraid. I'd gladly support in a couple months. Stifle (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral: Your stay has been long enough, but WP:1FA is lacking. --Slgrandson 15:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh God, people still use that? --Rory096 00:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Given your involvement with Tawkerbot2 and the like, what can we expect regarding assigning your potential admin powers to any bot you might run? -Splash - tk 05:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would never assign a bot my own potential admin powers (or in fact, run a bot under my username). I think I've made it pretty clear in the past that I'm opposed (generally) to admin powered bots. There are certain situtations in which I would support an admin bot, but that would be a separate issue, and considering the reaction when it was brought up last time on
WP:AN
I would consider the likelihood of an admin bot very low.
Having said that, scriptable tasks that are manually overseen are fair game to me, and if there is some mindless repetitive task I need to script, I'm happy to do that. For instance, the task of cleaning up the prod's after Rory they were damaged, which I wrote. joshbuddy, talk 06:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't damage anything! I fixed them after prod was changed! --Rory096 06:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't even edit Template:Prod at the time! See? --Rory096 06:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get the impression that most of Joshbuddy's support votes are due to his helpful input towards the creation of Tawkerbot, I fail to see how this automatically allows him to recieve admin. It does show he has good intentions though.--Andeh 18:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't per say but in the operation of the bots access to technical tools (such as deleted edits etc) are very much useful. I think if you take a look at my own RFA (which passed mostly on TB2, Joshbuddy didn't want any credit back then..) the same kind of question came up. RfA isn't about popularity, its about trust. I think its pretty obvious that Joshbuddy won't abuse the tools (hell, right now he can edit Wikipedia at ~150 pages per min with the bot, imagine if that was on a vandalbot) - we should take another look at what RfA is, and not see it as a popularity contest -- Tawker 20:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Useful comments as they apply to why I voted how I did and for what reasons. Adminship should be no big deal, I agree with that wholeheartedly. Tawker, what I want to know is does he need the tools to continue the editing he engages in? The bot(s), three now I think, are running, they have the TB2 page on AIV, you yourself are an admin (which of course I supported). They'd be nice to have, but this seems more like an honor to me rather than the mop and keys that an Administrator gets for doing the dirty work. Teke 05:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See above, we have a LOT of fully protected checkpages for TB2, Josh can't update them at the moment -- Tawker 05:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it IS a popularity contest. And he's popular for Tawkerbot2. But, ffs people, good coding/programming skills not necessarily = good admin!
NSLE 03:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Note the not necessarily section. Are you saying all coders / programmers would equal bad admins? Overall RFA might be a popularity contest but I don't think there's much doubt that joshbuddy won't abuse the tools in any way shape or form and can have some use for them. Believe it or not, we don't pay admins - it really doesn't cost anything to have people on side so if they won't screw with the site, why not? -- Tawker 03:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know that Tawkerbot2 is an important achievement in which Joshbuddy was an intricate part but there seems to be other qualifications that have been overlooked in this RfA. The pages related to Jehovah's Witnesses are very difficult ones to be involved in. It is an area where people on both sides of the fence feel very strongly and become quite blind to the Wikipedia guidelines, rules and etiquette. When you are talking about giving a user the ability to block or unblock users, delete pages, easily revert edits and protect pages one of the most important factors to consider is how they will handle these extra capabilities. Through Joshbuddy’s interactions within the emotionally charged environment of the JW pages it can easily be seen that he is level headed under pressure, does not return insult with insult but rather always works towards a solution that everyone can agree with and that is in the best interest of the article. He acts within the Wikipedia guidelines and helps other users to do the same. As such I think that Joshbuddy is an excellent candidate to become an administrator. Lucy 02:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Username	Joshbuddy
Total edits	2177
Distinct pages edited	689
Average edits/page	3.160
First edit	16:58, September 15, 2005
	
(main)	1157
Talk	307
User	217
User talk	271
Image	16
Image talk	1
Template	12
Template talk	14
Help	1
Category	2
Wikipedia	158
Wikipedia talk	14
Portal	6
Portal talk	1
 G.He 01:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All user's edits.

Voice-of-All 03:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
] 

--Viewing contribution data for user Joshbuddy (over the 2147 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 250 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 3hr (UTC) -- 22, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 15, September, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 59.04% Minor edits: 92.82%
Average edits per day: 7.36 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 402 edits) : Major article edits: 95.2% Minor article edits: 97.71%
Analysis of edits (out of all 2147 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.19% (4)
Small article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 10.25% (220)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 15.84% (340)
Minor article edits marked as minor: 71.19%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 654 | Average edits per page: 3.28 | Edits on top: 3.49%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 21.29% (457 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 17.93% (385 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 27.76% (596 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 30.04% (645 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 53.47% (1148) | Article talk: 14.16% (304)
User: 9.78% (210) | User talk: 12.39% (266)
Wikipedia: 7.17% (154) | Wikipedia talk: 0.56% (12)
Image: 0.79% (17)
Template: 0.51% (11)
Category: 0.09% (2)
Portal: 0.28% (6)
Help: 0.05% (1)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.75% (16)
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: Well, I've had a lot of fun helping with the open proxies (via programming assistance) and wikifing articles. Anything I can leverage my bot programming talents on is great for me, but otherwise I think i'd be quite content helping out with VIP, getting my hands deep in the drudgery of category sorting and splitting, and anything else that looks fun.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm proud of the ongoing work I've done in Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm pleased with the work I've done with both Tawkerbot and Tawkerbot2, and the immense learning experience that comes with having written all of this software.
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: There have been tense moments with various editors in the past. Incivility causes tension. I've made every effort to AGF, and in the future would certain do so. I think I would strive toward being gentler and kinder, but then again, that seems like an obvious destination for everyone.

Optional questions:

Dealing with frustration
You buy a dozen eggs. One of them is broken. Do you:
A. Eat eleven eggs,
B. Go back to Wal-Mart and pitch a fit about it,
C. Locate and kill the chicken, or
D. Other (please explain)
Role model
Who is your favorite superhero, comic-book or otherwise, and why?
Issac Asimov, because in his books, everyone is equally intelligent.
Hum, I supose that means you have not read The Gods Themselves, my dear Josh... ;) Phædriel ♥ tell me - 09:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I gotta disagree with you there, Josh... For example, remember how in the Foundation series, the merchant traders of Terminus are constantly outwitting the idiotic people of other systems? In particular, I remember the guard to the nuclear plant, who is tricked by the holo-shield thing one of the traders gives him. Anyway, I'd have to say Asimov was not an egalitarian. Λυδαcιτγ 21:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion moved to talk page. Λυδαcιτγ 22:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Naming conventions
What are your views on parenthetical disambiguation?
Its the current guideline. I think its fine.

— Jun. 19, '06 [21:17] <freak|talk>

Tricky Vandalism Reverts
A new user with infinite patience and the most wonderful enthusiasm makes a minor edit against
HawkerTyphoon 23:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
This sounds like the kind of editor that wikipedia should retain. First, a warning about the 3RR rule. If it persists, a short block with some useful information on their user talk page would be appropriate. Be kind. Wikipedia is daunting and at times byzantine. It can take time to become familiar with the culture and guidelines of wikipedia. I suppose, in short, work with this user. If the behaviour persists, and the user completely refuses to discuss, then this sort of behaviour is disputive to the wiki, and it must be stopped.
In terms of how much patience to show, it depends on how the user reacts to efforts to assist them. If they are willing to listen, I feel lots of patience can be shown. If the user becomes incivil and hostile, less grace is required. joshbuddytalk 00:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from Nobleeagle (Talk)

  1. Q: What part of Wikipedia do you dislike the most or feel most frustrated with in your time here thus far (this can be a user, type of user, policy, restriction etc.)? Have you tried to overcome these and would adminship make life any easier for you?
Thats an interesting question. Generally my time on wikipedia isn't terribly frustrating. I think of the most annoying or irritating things I've witnesses is the attrition of good editors and admins. This seems like a difficult problem (when looking at the variety of reasons why they leave) and certainly not one I can solve on my own. But I wouldn't mind being part of the solution (if it is solvable). But no admin tools are needed to be kind and thoughtful (which can't hurt this problem).
Vandals don't irritate me per se, it simply seems like part of the ebb and flow of daily life. Obviously admin tools will help me in dealing with problem vandalism more immediately than I currently do. joshbuddy, talk 14:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Question on bot / politeness Could you explain your thought process on how to make the bot you programmed sufficiently polite? Have you considered any measures to make it
    newbie-friendly? Did you run into any technical difficulities, or are you happy with your bot's politeness as it is? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 20:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Wow! That's a good question. The sort of vandalism that the bot picks up is not likely to fall under the sort of edits described in
WP:BITE. I've put a fair bit of time into distinguishing between bad or new edits vs. blatant vandalism. Even then, the bot only warns on the 1st and 4th bad edit (which the bot picks up) and I feel that User:Tawkerbot2/test1
is a pretty kind message. Certainly if there are instances where the bot is picking on newbies, I would want to adjust that.
Having said that, even vandalism can be "just trying it out" sorts of edits that get people hooked. I hope the test1 message it uses is kind and explanatory enough so as not to offend. Do you have some suggestions about how to make the bot better? I'm always happy to hear them. joshbuddy, talk 20:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do have suggestions, but as far as voting in your RfA, I was mainly just trying to determine how much you cared. You've earned my support. : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Joshbuddy&oldid=1147963443"