Cannabis Ruderalis

Edit links

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Hey man im josh 213 1 0 100 Open 14:18, 26 September 2023 5 days, 1 hour no report
Current time is 13:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC). — Purge this page
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Hey man im josh 213 1 0 100 Open 14:18, 26 September 2023 5 days, 1 hour no report
Current time is 13:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC). — Purge this page

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.

This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

Recently closed RfAs and RfBs (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N %
theleekycauldron2 RfA Successful 17 Aug 2023 313 1 2 100
Pppery RfA Successful 7 Aug 2023 195 71 9 73
Firefangledfeathers RfA Successful 13 Jul 2023 197 31 6 86

The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards

The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an account on Wikipedia. However, editing the RfA page is limited to extended confirmed users, so editors without an extended confirmed account may have their RfA subpage transcluded by someone who has the right. This is due to the community deeming that editors without the requisite experience (500 edits and 30 days of experience) are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship.[1] The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.

If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.

Nominations

To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.

Notice of RfA

Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en.

Expressing opinions

All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA, but numerical (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors while logged in to their account.

If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".

There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.

To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.

The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting, or responding to comments, in an RfA (especially Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like "baiting") consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.

In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[2] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.

In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[3] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.

If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 13:09:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.


Hey man im josh

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (213/1/0); Scheduled to end 14:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Nomination

Hey man im josh (talk · contribs) – It's my pleasure to nominate Hey man im josh for adminship. Josh first came to my attention through his work as a New Page Patroller (NPP), where he has been one of the 5 most active patrollers over the last year. I found Josh to be knowledgeable in the wide range of policies and guidelines required of NPP and even better to be a friendly respondant to the new editors he encountered with a level headed voice during discussions. Josh's work clearly goes beyond just NPP, as he is also active at a variety of noticeboards including AIV and UAA. His knowledge of the expectations regarding content can also be shown through his work writing or co-writing 4 Featured Lists (with a couple of other current nominations). All-in-all I find Josh to have the right mix of policy know-how, practical experience, and disposition to make a very good admin. I hope you join me in supporting him. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Co-nomination statement

I am excited to conominate Hey man im josh. In the last 3 years he has over 200,000 edits and does all kinds of essential, back-room maintenance work. I most frequently encounter him at UAA, I have acted on dozens of his reports and never once questioned or declined one. I have also seen his exemplary work at NPP, and concur with everything in Barkeep49's statement. There is always a need for administrators willing to work in these areas, and Hey man im josh will do an excellent job. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Thank you to the nominators for their kind words and their willingness to nominate me. I have never edited Wikipedia for pay and this is the only account I've ever edited with. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I’ve been receiving requests and encouragement to consider becoming an administrator and, after giving it much thought, I’d like to help out. I would start out in areas I’m most comfortable with, specifically areas related to counter-vandalism (administrator intervention against vandalism and usernames for administrator attention) and processing CSD requests. Eventually I am interested in and open to helping out in other places I have experience and where there's a need.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions are hard to put my finger on. Content wise, it’d be the 6 featured lists I’ve helped to promote, including List of National Football League annual passing yards leaders and List of awards and honours received by Angela Merkel, the latter of which was also featured at DYK. Though, I’m probably prouder of my work at NPP, where I’ve consistently reviewed new articles and redirects while also helping to recruit and coach new users. I’m also quite proud of my anti-vandalism contributions.
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: Absolutely, there’s no way to entirely avoid some type of conflict it in a collaborative environment. I do my best to keep an open mind, to avoid escalating the situation, and to try to understand the heart of the argument being made and where the person is coming from (even if participants are doing so in an unkind way), with the occasional reminder to assume good faith. At the end of the day, most of us are trying to improve Wikipedia, and I think it’s important to always keep that in mind. Some people need coaching and direction and I like to think I help to point users in the right direction when I can while also being willing to accept that I’m human, and I too can be wrong at times.
One example of a conflict I’ve been involved in was about a year back when a productive editor who I hold in high regard began to make changes to a series of articles that I follow. They began making changes in a way that I believed to be a violation of WP:SYNTH and a misrepresentation of the relevant terminology. There was a lot of back and forth and, eventually, it was brought to a discussion at the relevant WikiProject. After much discussion, local consensus was not enough for the user, and they requested that an RfC be held. The results of the RfC yielded the same result and restored the status quo, but it was a longer process than I thought necessary. I’ve had other disagreements with this user that haven’t gone this far, but they have helped to push me to grow in terms of conflict resolution and patience. I’m glad I’ve never allowed these disagreements to escalate or taint my view of that person because they’re a productive editor who I’m grateful to work with.

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.

Optional question from Therapyisgood

4. Do you regret saying "8 games in the NFL makes a person notable." in a deletion discussion in which the subject was ultimately redirected? You did strike the vote, but it is a cause for concern for me. here
A: I do regret that vote, which is why I eventually struck it. Participation in of itself is not enough to meet WP:SPORTBASIC, which is what American football players must meet since the deprecation of WP:NGRIDIRON.

Optional question from Horse Eye's Back

5. How substantial was your IP editing before you created an account and are there any events, experiences, or lessons learned from that time which you think would be important for those reviewing this application to know?
A: I don't believe I did much, if any, IP editing prior to registration. I started editing because the NFL changed the URL format for players on their website and I was annoyed that links from player infoboxes to the NFL's website were not correct. I searched for the IP range I expected to be on but I'm not finding any edits from around that time frame. If there are any edits I made prior to registration then I expect that they're related to NFL player infoboxes. In short, no, I don't believe there's any relevant history that can be shared from a time before I registered.
Thank you, the only follow up I have is the standard "Do you have any conflicts of interest in regards to the NFL?" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not have any conflicts of interest in regards to the NFL. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Optional question from Edward-Woodrow

6. Under what circumstance do you think it is suitable to block a user indefinitely, as opposed to a temporary block?
A: Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, so I would want to block just enough to stop the behaviours that are leading to the block. I would choose a time limited, rather than indefinite, block when it seems like it would be sufficient to stop the disruption. Additionally, one could also utilize partial blocks from articles or name spaces when appropriate.

Optional question from Valereee

7. I have to admit I'm a bit leery of a non-admin who is the #1 contributor at ANI. Can you discuss?
A: My edit count at ANI is misleading because of the non-controversial clerking that I do there. Usually that involves archiving old discussions and closing discussions where an administrator has already acted. It's a noticeboard that I regularly browse but I do not usually participate in outside of said clerking. I do not intend on taking a more active role at ANI if I pass this RfA.
Followup: Why were you clerking at ANI? I think those functions are handled by bots?
At ANI, the header states that sections inactivate for 72 hours are archived automatically, but it also states that routine matters may be archived more quickly. I found that discussions would stay open longer than necessary, leading to users commenting a couple days after the discussions had been concluded (sometimes not realizing that the issue was already "resolved"), which would then reset the timer for archiving. I feel that, in clerking, I've helped to keep the focus on the discussions that still require attention from the community and administrators.

Optional question from Lemonaka

8. What's your points of view about WP:CIR? Since there are lots of accusations on WP:ANI about that.
A:

Optional question from Homeostasis07

9. Can you elaborate a bit on what you meant in your response to question 1, where you said: "Eventually I am interested in and open to helping out in other places I have experience and where there's a need." In which other places/projects/pages do you have interest/experience, and how do you currently envisage yourself using the admin tools in those places?
A: Absolutely, thanks for the question. What I meant by that is that once I am more comfortable and experienced with the tools, I may be willing to use them in other areas. I believe it’s important to proceed slowly and to get comfortable with the basics before branching out. In situations where I’m unsure, I would defer to an admin with more experience because, when in doubt with administrative tools, it is usually better not to act than to act.
None of these are set in stone, but based on my experience, I have considered also working at requests for page protection, requests for undeletion, and possibly closing discussions at RfD. I am willing to learn and help in other areas if I’m asked to chip in elsewhere.

Optional question from Prodraxis

10. You see these four usernames reported to UAA; 1) Acme Corporations Inc., 2) Hey man im john, 3) SysopOfWookieepedia and 4) Troll12345. How do you respond to each of those reports?
A: Thank you for the question.
Acme Corporations Inc. – While Acme is not technically a real company, I do believe the username violates the spirit of WP:CORPNAME. I would likely soft block the user.
Hey man im john –This could possibly be a violation of WP:SIMILARNAME, but I’d rather assume good faith and go through the editor’s contributions to see if they’re working in the same area(s) that I do, and whether they’re actually trying to impersonate me. I would block them if it’s clear that they are impersonating me. Based on feedback I've received, I would likely report the user at UAA and not block them myself. While not quite WP:INVOLVED, I'd rather someone else perform the block if necessary.
SysopOfWookieepedia – Technically a violation of the username policy, as the name describes a particular role within a group that can be represented or held by multiple people. I’d reach out to them to change their name instead of blocking right away, unless they’ve been promoting the website, in which case I’d block the user for promotional editing.
Troll12345 – While the username may imply an intent to troll, I would not block the user based off the name alone. Trolls are, after all, a mythical creature and a popular doll, and one could make the argument that’s what their name is based off of. I’d need to go through their contributions to see whether the user is being disruptive or not and, if they have been vandalizing, block as a vandalism-only account.

Optional question from BilledMammal

11. In User:BeanieFan11 and WP:BATTLEGROUND at NFL AFDs, you argued that it was appropriate to notify the NFL WikiProject of an ANI report against one of their members because the WikiProject had been mentioned and discussed in a negative manner, despite the possibility that such a notification would act as canvassing. Do you still believe that such a notification is appropriate?
A: After re-reading the discussion, I believe my views on notifying WikiProjects may have been misinterpreted. In that discussion, I primarily argued that neutral notifications to relevant WikiProjects about deletion discussions were appropriate and could lead to improvement of the articles, while also arguing that the group was not uniform in their views and voting habits.
I believe that when the conduct of a WikiProject is being discussed, as it was at that discussion, that the WikiProject should be notified. It should not be notified in an instance where a single member is under scrutiny. Prior to the WikiProject being notified of that discussion, there were two comments (1, 2) calling the conduct of the group into question. While I do think the notification may have been premature, I do believe it would have been necessary at some point given the direction that the discussion took. As with any ANI discussion, the party being discussed should be notified and given an opportunity to contribute to the discussion. With that said, the notification to the WikiProject should have been made by someone else given that the notifier was the primary focus of the discussion.
Followup: In general, what benefit do you see coming from notifying a WikiProject of an ANI discussion when the WikiProject does not collectively face the possibility of being sanctioned, and how does that benefit outweigh the canvassing impact? (As a side note, that was actually the second notification provided; the first was here.)
Generally speaking, I do not believe there is a benefit to notifying groups of discussions at ANI if the group’s behaviour is not being examined. The impact of canvassing a WikiProject could absolutely outweigh any relevant benefit brought forth by said group to the discussion. An uninvolved WikiProject that an editor is a part of is not an appropriate audience simply because the editor is a part of said group.

Optional question from Tamzin

12. Building on Valereee's Q7, many of your clerical edits to AN/I are closing short discussions that have already been resolved, restating what the actioning admin said ([1] [2] [3] for 3 recent cases). Can you explain your reasoning for such closes?
A: These are what I would consider routine discussions that don’t benefit from further discussions, as they’ve been “resolved” already, and don’t necessarily need to linger at the ANI noticeboard for an extended period. In theory, closing these discussions should help to focus user and admin effort to the open requests that have not yet been handled.
I hadn’t received negative feedback about my clerking at ANI before, but I now realize, based on commentary and questions at this RfA, that not everyone views these as productive edits. I will be seriously considering this feedback going forward.

Optional question from Lourdes

13. Thank you for applying. During your initial ~100-150 edits after registering, you were undertaking high-speed edits (such as, on one extreme, 8 to 10 edits in a minute regularly, and multiple times. I am giving one set of links for representative purposes:[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]). I just wanted your thoughts on whether you used any bots, and/or on how you gained exposure early on to the pfr and similar template qualifiers? Thank you. Lourdes 10:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A:Thanks for the question. I did not immediately start off doing that many edits at a time or in a minute, nor did I use bots to perform those edits.
Templates and template parameters are something I’m familiar with from outside of Wikipedia and the understanding of that was transferrable. It was a matter of understanding what each parameter did, the proper information to add to that field, and then pressing preview to verify that the output matched what I was trying to do. Once I figured that out, I eventually began to edit in batches.
If you look at the times you’ll see there's a pattern of 4-6 minutes between these batches of edits. I've always edited with 2 or 3 monitors and I'll, quite often, have at least 20 or so tabs open at a time. At that time, I would have the relevant website open (pfr or NFL) on one screen while flipping between the tabs of the players I had open on the other screen. I found this less monotonous and more efficient than trying to update each page one at a time.
To those who don’t want to dig through my edit history, I initially started out fixing links to the NFL’s website in player infoboxes (their URL scheme had changed and links no longer went to player’s page), adding the pfr parameter to player infoboxes (adds a relevant link to a stat website by the name of Pro-football-reference.com), and trying to make the highlights section of said infoboxes more consistent.

Optional question from Dolotta

14. Of the admin areas you plan to participate in, where do you have the least experience?
A: Thanks for the question. I'd say requests for undeletion. I have experience in nominating pages for deletion, but I've never requested or been involved in the un-deletion process. The instructions are pretty straight forward, so I do feel confident that I could manage if and when I venture into processing requests. For any request that I'm unsure about I would leave it for another admin to process, with the intent to monitor the request and learn from the outcome.

Optional questions from Idoghor Melody

15. As an admin, it's often expected or requested to help other editors especially new users, by dealing with disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution and also editors who requests some permissions outside RFP(Rollback,IPBE etc). How do you see yourself in these aspect of an Admin's role?
A:
16. Would you block an admin if there's an immediate need to do so, and under what circumstances do you think you'll carry out such a task?
A:


Discussion

  • Links for Hey man im josh: Hey man im josh (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
  • Edit summary usage for Hey man im josh 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. Seems reasonable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. I keep my promises. You have my support Josh. The Night Watch (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Josh is a fantastic candidate and I'm glad he's finally decided to run. I'm also most familiar with him from NPP, where apart doing a stellar job in the trenches, he helps a great deal with behind-the-scenes coordination tasks. I must have processed a dozen WP:PERM/A requests on his behalf by now, so if successful here I hope he will consider helping out there directly – it's often backlogged. – Joe (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. As nom. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Trusted noms, have been impressed by what I've seen of them - why not? Happy to support. Girth Summit (blether) 14:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Trust candidate and noms. Good luck. — Ixtal ( T / C ) Non nobis solum. 14:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. He is a great editor who will make a great admin. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. 100% support. No hesitation here. Best of luck! SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 14:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. I don't see why not, established productive editors should be able to deal with vandalism. Haven't seen anything of concern if candidate chooses to venture into other areas of adminship either. --TylerBurden (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Editor is amazing at NPP, so I definitely support! —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 14:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Per nom and NPP work.––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 14:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Hey man, he's Josh. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Cabayi (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Per nom and seeing his work firsthand. —Locke Colet • c 14:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support obvious net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Ding ding ding! You win! Great editor, great person, potentially great admin. Per nom. Kline | yes? 14:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. I do not see any problems.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. No reason not to support. /Julle (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Obviously. -Lemonaka‎ 14:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. found precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. No concerns. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 15:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Outstanding NPP work Justiyaya 15:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Very Strong Support. I've seen Josh many times while I was also fighting against vandalism. Candidate is trustworthy with the mop. Outstanding Move! 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 15:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support. In an ideal world I would like to see more content work; the FLs in question aren't particularly content dense (though some FLs can be). However, this is balanced, I believe, by the sheer quantity of work he's done at NPP. I cannot evaluate the entirety of it given the volume, but I trust those who have, and if you can do that much work without people getting upset at you then you'll be a good addition to the mop corps. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Outside of candidates who are truly exceptional in a particular area (normally technical), I will only nominate candidates who I feel understand content and understand it well. For most people that's best demonstrated by them doing the work themselves, but in Josh's case it really was FL plus their work at NPP, with NPP being more representative of admin type work with content in a lot of circumstances than doing content oneself. It is definitely my assessment from my examination of Josh's work over an extended period of time that he has the skills I think we're both looking for. Best. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support – of course. Excellent editor; no concerns. I actually thought they were an admin until I found out a couple months ago that they weren't. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 15:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support. I see this editor around the place quite often, always in a positive way: constructive, knowledgeable, helpful. I also trust the nominators. Neiltonks (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Support: An excellent editor who has consistently done good work at NPP. Will be a great asset to the admin corps. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 15:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Not at all surprised to see this RfA, except maybe for the fact that it didn't happen sooner. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Very Strong Support—through my numerous interactions with josh, I have found him a dedicated and skilled contributor. Absolute admin material right here! re-adding my vote after it was accidentally removed by someone else Festucalextalk 15:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Strong support excellent candidate overall. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 15:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Support Net positive! Tails Wx 15:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support: there's so many things I could say here, Josh is truly one of the best. I don't see any glaring problems that would put a shadow over his otherwise great accomplishments (especially in NPP work), so this is an easy support. Schminnte (talk contribs) 15:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Yknow, I'd thought to myself before that Josh would make a great admin. Puts in SO much work at noticeboards and combatting vandalism; proud to support. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 15:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. I figure if one gets the "I thought he was an admin" reaction from me, they're usually worth supporting. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. No concerns. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 15:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Yes! 100% Absolutely! Josh is an outstanding admin candidate! BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Support. Hard not to support someone with a staggering 47,000 patrols. Thank you so much for your contributions to NPP. Also has a great temperament. No concerns here. Best of luck! –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Support. Hey man, im admin. Good candidate, great track-record, valuable editor, no concerns, net positive, et cetera. Askarion 15:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support no issues from my perspective. (Although there is an apostrophe missing and some rather unorthodox capitalisation in "im"...) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Satisfies my criteria.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. See no reason not to. AryKun (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Support Would be a great addition. North8000 (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Support: Seems like a good candidate to me judging by his edits on vandalism. NASCARfan0548 (alt)  16:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. In my limited interactions with him off-wiki, I've found him to be a nice and friendly person. In my opinion, these are the most important qualities for anyone, let alone an admin. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 16:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Haven't seen any reason to oppose. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Support, awesome editor! Their work at NPP is great. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 16:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Support: Why not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Easy support. Thanks for volunteering. – bradv 16:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Support valuable contributor, positive interaction where I recall working with them. Star Mississippi 16:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Support easily, per nominators — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Support Yet another "I thought they were already an admin" user. :) – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 17:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Strong support Content creator? Check. Vandal fighter? Check. Civil and mature? Check. Meets all of my criteria. To be honest, Josh is one of the editors I've been keeping eyes on as potential additions to the mop corps for a long time. #prodraxis connect 17:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Strong support Have seen this user for years doing great work. Absolute net positive to the team. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Support This guy has the work schedule of a supercomputer when it comes to NPP. They're a great candidate for my first RfA vote and also the bit. Deauthorized. (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Support. I recall no negative interactions with him. I admire the work at NPP. SWinxy (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Had thought Josh already held the mop, until finding out otherwise a few weeks ago. Happy to offer my support. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Support I see him around enough to know he would make an excellent admin.Skycloud86 (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Good anti-vandalism work.zoglophie 18:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Support great candidate and brilliant work at NPP, best wishes Josey Wales Parley 18:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. Support. I work with and communicate with Josh pretty much every single day that I edit, he does FANTASTIC AIV work, +1 to this. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 18:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Support. Full disclosure: I worked on List of awards and honours received by Angela Merkel with HMIJ, and I know him from NPP, so I may be slightly biased. However, setting aside the fact that I think he's extraordinarily pleasant to work with, HMIJ has contributed an incredible amount of value to WP. He is highly active in the NPP community (and has shown deep and broad knowledge of lots of different aspects of WP), and he's always helpful and constructive in his editing. HMIJ embodies what I think admins should be like; people who know a lot about WP, who are helpful and kind to others, and who are willing to say "Well, I have no clue." and leave a task to someone else when that's appropriate. I have no doubt that his adminship would be a significant improvement to the project and its community. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 18:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. Support thanks for volunteering! Elli (talk | contribs) 18:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  64. Support. Fantastic editor with a collaborative mindset. Active in areas where tools are needed, will be a great addition to the admin corps. ULPS (talkcontribs) 18:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Support, does a GREAT job at helping out with WP. Sheep (talk • he/him) 18:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  66. Support thanks so much for volunteering your time with this project. jengod (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. Support, no substantive reason to oppose. I have misgiving, such as the >90% of the edits on the time card falling into a mon-fri 8 hour work day editing schedule and the sheer volume of bot-like edits, but nothing which I can really pick out as overtly a problem and their positive contributions are undeniable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. Support, Is a great candidate, does great AIV and UAA work! Seawolf35 (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  69. Support as conominator sorry for the delay, work ended up being much busier than I thought it would be. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  70. Support. Trustworthy contributor. Binksternet (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  71. Support: well done for your work at NPP. 141Pr {contribs} 19:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  72. My inner grammar policeman wants to oppose because of your username but the rest of me feels sufficient confidence when I see your name on my watchlist that I couldn't withhold support over pedantry. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  73. I have seen the work he's done and am in full support for adminship. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 19:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  74. Support: Very solid candidate. Helpful and informative FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  75. Strong Support....'cause I'm glad to see this. Seen him around and take this moment to appreciate what he's done around here. Best wishes Volten001 19:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  76. Support - Seen them around a lot, always found them impressive. With regard to Q7, Josh's ANI clerking has indeed been helpful, though I'm sure that given their temperament other contributions from them on that noticeboard would also be highly valued. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  77. Support Positive impressions from seeing their edits and positive interactions with them as well, no concerns. Skynxnex (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  78. Emphatically. I'm very familiar with his work at FLC and confident in his content knowledge, and my impression of his patrol work is (expectedly, then) positive. I've been a bit skeptical of the "ANI clerking", but he's a very chill guy and I'd rather someone inclined to defuse than diffuse conflict there. Vaticidalprophet 20:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  79. Support Without question. Curbon7 (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  80. Support This editor consistently promotes a collaborative atmosphere here. I'm confident they will excel as an admin. Rkieferbaum (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  81. Super happy to see you run! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  82. Support I know this is something people say all the time at these sorts of RFAs, but I didn't realize you weren't an admin until just now. Partofthemachine (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  83. Stephen 21:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  84. Support, in a change from my previous votes, I have actually interacted with Josh. It was him just being a useful soul cleaning up vandalism, this time on plant pages. While he's not as occasionally obsessive as I would like in my Platonic ideal of a RfA candidate, he's a solid choice. Also, since this is in public, edit more plant pages people. I've had to slack off this month and the plants need your help. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  85. Big support, glad to see Josh at RfA. One of the names I've seen regularly beating me to the punch when it comes to counter-vandalism, and an all round huge positive to the project. WindTempos (talk • contribs) 21:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  86. Support no-brainer. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  87. Support I've seen them doing antivandalism work several times. They have a kind disposition and avoid biting newcomers. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 22:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  88. Duh. Courcelles (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  89. Support very glad to see this nomination Mccapra (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  90. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  91. Support prolific NPP reviewer who would make a great admin. Yeeno (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  92. Support per a lot, especially SPF's comments below. GrammarDamner how are things? 22:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  93. Support. Going to do fine.—Alalch E. 22:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  94. Support I think he has the right skills and attitude to be a good admin. Schazjmd (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  95. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  96. Very Strong Support Absolute no-brainer. - Bringingthewood (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  97. Support great work at npp, good content work Atlantic306 (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  98. Support Leijurv (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  99. Support Seen them around NPP and other places. Very high overall.Geoff | Who, me? 22:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  100. WP:100 :) Mz7 (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  101. Oppose: User hasn’t capitalized their name in their username, clearly doesn’t understand WP:MOSCAP. [Joke] - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  102. Support - no concerns, I thought they were already an admin. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 23:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  103. Support. I have seen him around several times recently. He takes on hard work, does it well and with a good demeanor. I trust he will make a good administrator. Donner60 (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  104. Support Heck yes. I see him around doing admin-adjacent work all the time, and doing it well. Joyous! Noise! 23:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  105. Support Thought he already was one. Andre🚐 23:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  106. Support, I avoid participating in RfAs, but in Josh's case, I am prepared to break my silence. Solid editor with a cheerful attitude, I haven't seen him put a foot wrong yet. Cheers, PKT(alk) 23:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  107. Support Thank you for volunteering! I normally dislike ANI clerking, but their explanation is convincing, as a way of reducing further tension. Clearly an exceptionally kind and friendly admin who will make Wikipedia a welcoming place for newbies. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  108. Support Why not? -FASTILY 23:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  109. Support. plicit 23:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  110. Of what I remember, I have only had good experiences with this user. ✶Mitch199811 23:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  111. Support. I've had seen you around and assumed you were an admin already. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 00:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  112. Support - Unequivocally and whole-heartedly. Excellent choice.Onel5969 TT me 00:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  113. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  114. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  115. Support - Why not? ~ Sav (ut • c) 00:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  116. Support A suitable candidate for adminship. The person who loves reading (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  117. ʇɹoddnS as nominator. But nah for real, I thought this user was already an administrator; they certainly have the knowledge and expertise, especially in regards to maintenance edits (such as redirects and categories), drafts and other various types of wiki patrolling. My few interactions with josh the lowercased man who likes to greet fellow editors have been pretty positive. No concerns from me,  LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 01:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  118. Support An editor who has made huge contributions in both NPP and Counter-Vandalism. Always pleasant to interact with. TartarTorte 01:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  119. Support Good candidate. Chetsford (talk) 01:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  120. Not a jerk, has a clue. And I hope he refuses to answer the UAA question even though he works there. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  121. Support. I have seen the candidate at NPP and have been impressed by the depth and professionalism of their work. CapitalSasha ~ talk 02:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  122. Support. Major edit history and extremely active. Trusted. Well-rounded personality. Noms by very trusted individuals. ~Gwennie🐈💬 📋⦆ 02:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  123. Support - No concerns. Lightoil (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  124. Support - Experienced and trusted user. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 02:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  125. Support - It never occurred to me that you're not an admin already, and we definitely need more admins! --RockstoneSend me a message! 02:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  126. Support. I am familiar with Josh based on their prolific and high-quality work in NPP and AfDs (he is of course also active in anti-vandalism work). Most of their article created are stub/start/redirect/disambiguation articles, but I find their overall content experience to be all right based on the featured lists taken together with NPP (which I would consider to be content-related). I am slightly skeptical with ANI clerking in general but in this case very little appears problematic. Overall, this is an easy support. VickKiang (talk) 03:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  127. (edit conflict) Ah yes, another instance of me thinking "you're already an admin". Helping with backend stuff of WP, still great just like content creation. And, lots of experience here and there.Sees that user pretty often while doing anti-vandal work. ~~2NumForIce (speak|edits) 03:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC) (edited 03:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC): add more content)Reply[reply]
  128. Support - I have no concerns. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 04:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  129. Hey man im supporting Folly Mox (talk) 04:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  130. Support, very good addition to the corps. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  131. Support per above. Graham87 (talk) 04:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  132. Support I checked out the candidate's contributions and I trust the candidate to protect content and content creators. I think that normally I fret about content but the editor's NPP experience is great. I also trust the judgement of the nominator Barkeep49. Lightburst (talk) 04:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  133. Hey support im dad. GeraldWL 04:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  134. Hey man I Support. Another "I thought he already was an admin" !votes. Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  135. Support No concerns. Thank you for reviewing my redirects. :) Scorpions1325 (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  136. Support—Eminently qualified. Kurtis (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  137. Support: Trusted user. Toadette (let's chat together) 07:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  138. Support Good luck! --Vacant0 (talk) 07:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  139. Support I've only seen positive contributions from josh. DFlhb (talk) 07:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  140. Support Excellent editor who I long thought would make a good admin. A welcome addition. scope_creepTalk 08:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  141. Support, now there's a name I'm awfully glad to see at RfA. I don't see any reason that the ANI clerking or the like is a significant cause for concern. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  142. Support Had a nagging doubt about declining this user's CSD nominations, but I spot checked the last couple of hundred and can't see any issue with them. Combined with contributing to several featured lists (which, while not as gruelling as a FAC still require work and responding to feedback) means I don't have any concerns. I'm not bothered about ANI clerking as they've given a justifiable reason to do it - the only thing I'd say is sometimes just leaving a thread to die at ANI instead of formally closing it can be the best option. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  143. Support If you are an active contributer to Wikipedia, there is now way you would have not come across Josh. He has helped me out a tonne as a New Page Patroller (NPP) as I frequently make new redirects to important articles. Obvious support. PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  144. Support Trusted and well qualified for the admin mopIsla 🏳️‍⚧ 09:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  145. Easy "per nom" support for a well qualified candidate.--John Cline (talk) 09:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  146. Support: Josh is one among those who inspired me to become an NPP reviewer. If not them, who else deserves to be an admin!!Thilsebatti (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  147. Support - great work at NPP. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  148. Support. I'd wondered if he would apply soon. SilverLocust 💬 11:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  149. Support. Seen them around the place. Has a clue, seems like a fine addition. Anarchyte (talk) 11:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  150. Support I don’t normally voice my opinion on RFA but I think hey man I’m josh is completely qualified. I have seen them around fighting vandalism and being an overall competent user. Nagol0929 (talk) 11:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  151. Support Hey man, this feels like the most exiting thing that has happened for a while. Seen you all over the place, I don't see a reason why shouldn't be trusted with the mop. NotAGenious (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  152. Support: General good editing that could be improved with the admin toolkit, seems to have the right disposition towards other editors. Good luck! ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  153. Support Silcox (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  154. Support. I create redirects regularly as part of my work in the requested moves space, and Josh has been one of the most consistent and diligent users I've seen reviewing those redirects. I was surprised to learn he wasn't an admin already, and I believe he would be a strong addition to the admin corps. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  155. Support for this highly productive editor whose work patrolling new pages demonstrates the knowledge, patience, and empathy I prefer in an administrator.~TPW 14:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  156. Support I strongly feel that I am familiar with his counter-vandalism work. --Victor Trevor (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  157. Support. After extensive review, I can't come up with any reason to oppose this nominee, so I guess I'll have to support! BD2412 T 15:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  158. Support. Always helpful edits and demeanour. Loopy30 (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  159. Support Net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  160. Support. I've seen consistently sound assessments and engagements; I'm looking forward to seeing good mopping too. NebY (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  161. Support. Very strong NPP record. 777burger user talk contribs 16:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  162. Non-bolded Support. I agree with the sentiment of Valereee's question. Though, I will point out josh only makes the top 10 because the tool only counts the last 50,000 edits. I think the AN/I clerking is a bit pointless in general. Like, take this diff for example. That type of NAC is only really helpful when the Admin doesn't leave a comment at AN/I. Regardless, what's the point of formally closing something (with only 1 comment besides the report) you're just going to archive in 3 days anyways?
    Still, is this worth opposing over? No, I don't think so. Does it show bad judgement? Not really. I think a lot of non-admins who frequent AN/I are guilty of something similar (including myself). It's something you grow out of eventually (especially if you become an admin yourself).
    What's important to me is that josh has a healthy amount of edits elsewhere in projectspace. If he didn't have that, then I'd be a bit more worried. –MJLTalk 16:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  163. Support Josh has been very kind, helpful, and a strong contributor to all of Wikipedia. TheCorvetteZR1(The Garage) 16:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  164. Support per nomination. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  165. Uh huh. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 17:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  166. Support I have quite a few admin talk pages on my watch list as it has proved really helpful as a relative newbie (I've been here just over a year) in learning how Wikipedia works, what to do and importantly what not to do. Josh ended up on my watchlist as I've bumped into him a lot when dealing with vandalism, UAA and noticeboards. I thought he was already an admin. I think he has an excellent temperament suited to the admin role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knitsey (talk • contribs) 17:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  167. Strong support. I've been waiting for this one. Excellent NPPer, helpful in other areas. And also WT:RAL would never be backlogged, since like 99% of the nominations there are by him... CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 17:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  168. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Welcome to the ranks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  169. Support. --Kinu t/c 18:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  170. Hey man im josh seems like an excellent candidate and I am happy to support. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 18:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  171. Support Seen them around and always left a positive impression. Solid editor with plenty of clue and no red or yellow flags. The sole oppose is unpersuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  172. Support - Have seen them around the NPP discord, really helpfull, also more admins is always a good thing. -- Sohom (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  173. Support generally. StartOkayStop (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  174. Support though it would be strong if there was a mid candidacy username change to 'Hey man, I'm Josh' for consistency and grammar reasons The work they have done is good. Zippybonzo | talk to me | what have I done (he|she|they) 19:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  175. Support -- Looks like qualified candidate to me! -- Dolotta (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  176. Support Looks good to me! -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  177. Support Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  178. Support Looks good to me. History6042 (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  179. Support I've wanted to see Josh run for a while. He's one of the prolific vandal fighters I know, and he would absolutely put the tools to good use. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 20:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  180. Support casualdejekyll 20:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  181. I'm satisfied with A12. I'd feel differently if anyone had ever raised the issue with the candidate before, but AFAIK no one had, and I appreciate it's subjective. (I know there's some admins who do find closes like that helpful; I just rather strongly disagree.) A10 also caught my eye, as someone who does a lot of username blocks. I might nitpick that softblocking vs. warning vs. no-actioning Acme would be dependent on its editing history, but given that the question gave no details about that, I think it's a reasonable enough answer; the rest of the answer is well-handled, including the potential trick question with SysopOfWookieepedia. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  182. Support I'm shocked he wasn't one already! Painting17 (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  183. Support, no concerns on my part. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  184. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 21:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  185. Support No concerns, net positive and clearly gets things done.Muchclag (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  186. Support no concerns, although I do kind of agree that the name needs to change... GiantSnowman 21:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  187. Support. I've had nothing but a good impression of the candidate throughout his tenure here. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  188. Support Thanks for answering my question above. User seems like a perfectly nice person and will use the tools well, so am happy to support. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  189. Support This is a no-brainer for me. Josh is smart, and I've had a great impression of him, especially at AN and ANI. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  190. Support. I've seen this user around at various spots and he does very productive work. I recently spotted his requests for autopatrolled on behalf of other users, a very productive way to cut down on the NPP backlog. His answers above indicate a good attitude and strong policy knowledge. I'm confident he'll be a great admin. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 23:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  191. Support - Always had pleasant interactions. Seems appropriately skilled. No reason to oppose — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  192. Support Good anti-vandalism work. Just a random Wikipedian(talk) 23:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  193. Support. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  194. Support - A very good editor, new page reviewer, and seems to handle administrative areas of Wikipedia well. ChrisWx (talk - contribs) 00:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  195. Support. No concerns. And I rather like your username the way it is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  196. Support - as a member CVU who's encountered this guy before, i like this dood he's great at anti-vandalism DM5Pedia 00:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  197. Support: This is a worthwhile bandwagon. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  198. Support : Josh is a very active New Page patroller, he has done tremendous work on the area. He has done so many jobs, hopefully he still patrol time to time! ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  199. Support. Excellent candidate. CycloneYoris talk! 02:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  200. Support I've seen Josh doing good work all over Wikipedia, and I think he'd continue that as an admin. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  201. Support easily, qualified and will find tools useful. – Teratix ₵ 03:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  202. Support without hesitation. The single oppose to date is evidence in favor of this candidacy. Cullen328 (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  203. I've seen him on Discord where he comes across as friendly, helpful, and knowledgeable about policy and its applications. I'll admit that his activity on ANI threw me off when I first saw him there several months ago, but his explanation gives me confidence that he has good judgement and his activities there are a net positive. (With that said, I would discourage less experienced editors from following in his footsteps as early closures of ANI threads can be disruptive if done carelessly.) I also reviewed the ANI thread referenced by the sole oppose at the time of this comment. I found his comments in that thread to be civil and well-reasoned, and I agree that the oppose !vote is completely unconvincing. Not that it matters, but I also kinda like his username as it is. SamX [talk · contribs] 03:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  204. Support — No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  205. Support Meets the criteria, seems like a good guy OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions?
  206. Support' Side discussion - Josh's closures at ANI are actually very helpful, as are closures done by others, as they save time while checking issues - but this is something obvious. So won't reiterate. Josh also has hands-on experience in article editing (and conflicts), so I am confident they will traverse their way through here quite productively. Lourdes 05:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  207. Support. Hey man, I'm happy to see this! — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  208. Me too, Support. Very good candidate. Ctxz2323 (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  209. Support. No concerns. Maproom (talk) 06:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  210. Like many other editors here, I consider HMIJ a good candidate for the bit. Need more like him! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 09:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  211. DatGuyTalkContribs 10:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  212. Support and best of luck Mujinga (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  213. Support Makes sense as he is a level-headed editor. GenQuest "scribble" 13:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose
  1. Describes AC/DS alerts to be "retaliatory" even when he is editing the concerning area.[12] He believes experienced editors dealing with vandals and disruptive editors in a very contentious area can be be blocked without warning,[13][14] and deems such bad blocks to be "good block".[15]
    The content creation is also mainly full of stub and disambiguation pages.[16] I hope this candidate will spend more time in content creation. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For what it's worth about the content creation, Josh has created quite a few FLs from lists with almost no prose whatsoever. These are not listed at xTools as they are not creations, but rather expansions. Perhaps not the most prolific content editor, but he has experience in the space as well as at NPP that is not shown by a simple xTools page. ULPS (talkcontribs) 13:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Having read over the discussion you reference, you were in the distinct minority of people who rather vociferously argued the conduct that Hey man im josh pointed out—edit warring to put incendiary and dubiously-at-best sourced claims in the lead of a BLP—was insufficient for said user to be blocked. The full discussion is here, for reference. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not generally one for oppose badgering, but this is beyond the pale. I am the admin who unblocked the user in question, with the blocking administrator's approval, and after they accepted that their editing had been disruptive, so I remember the case. Every single admin who looked at the matter (including myself) agreed that it was a good block: the editor person in question was edit warring to maintain BLP-violating content. You're going to hold it against the candidate that they also agreed it was a good block? Sheesh. Girth Summit (blether) 20:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For reference, first diff seems disingenuous at best, grudging harassment at worst. By my reading, the discussion in question was a highly unsuccessful block review against Cullen that this opposer requested. Josh was one of the first respondents, and apparently endorsed the block with a reasonable, evidence-based rationale. Aman, an apparently-heated, passionate bludgeoner in that discussion, issued an AC/DS alert, apparently in response to Josh's providing an uninvolved request for feedback response as someone who disagreed with Aman. Josh pointed out that this struck him as obviously-retaliatory as he was in no way involved in the subject area, beyond providing a requested response for feedback. Abhishek0831996, you are very apparently bringing up a grudge from nearly half-a-year ago without factually substantiating your accusations or providing a specific violation of policy, if this was any other forum, I would probably block you for that under the new UCoC. ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Obviously no respect for punctuation in usernames.[FBDB] GMGtalk 20:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Just checking @GreenMeansGo, is this a joke oppose or is there something I'm missing? Thanks, Schminnte (talk contribs) 20:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Yes, it's a joke, one I wouldn't make if it wasn't already abundantly clear they were going to pass. I have enough faith in our crats that they understand the common usage of the small and FBDB templates. GMGtalk 20:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Fair enough. I viewed this on mobile, not seeing the small templates. I mean no offence to our crats or yourself! Thank you for clarifying, Schminnte (talk contribs) 21:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      One way to do joke opposes is to do a bold oppose in the support section, to not throw off the stats. Might be worth thinking about! –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I've bulleted (instead of numbered) this so it doesn't count towards the actual oppose count. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 23:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      That will break the numbering if there is another oppose. If this needs clerking I suggest we just let the crats handle it directly. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Now it won't. I left the bullet point to hopefully make it slightly more obvious GMG's comment is not related to the first oppose. Primefac (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral
General comments
  • I feel the need to add something about this candidate. Hey man im josh hasn't just grown as an editor (far beyond myself,) he takes time to help ANYONE who reaches out, even if they've had a spat in the past, which is my experience with this individual. He has the proper temperament, he's understanding, thorough, and in an odd way, helped me keep my feet under me on this project, whether he knows that or not. Time constraints don't allow me to participate in the project like I want to, but I can say that I have a better understanding of what the project is, and my role within, thanks to him. I know this is just stuff that can go under the "Support" !vote, but the impact he's had on my experience with this project deserves its own space. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 17:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    They've only been here 18 months, effectively; they're pretty new. Give them a chance. SN54129 20:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hopefully I didn't word this in a fashion that was misunderstood; I support this user 100%. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 20:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rather bewildering conversation, this. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC) Reply[reply]
SN is right. We're missing the trees and Eeng for the woods, for a change. Lourdes 10:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And SN, of course, is well known for their complete lack of irony. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I guess I have a bit of a COI here, but can someone help me understand why multi-part UAA questions like Q10 don't fall under WP:RFA's The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios)? It's certainly a practice with a long pedigree, but that sentence does seem to apply, right? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    They should fall under the rule. Prodraxis, requesting you to stick to two examples. Thank you. Lourdes 10:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I disagree. The intent there was about different scenarios. These are the same scenario, just with different usernames to assess. It isn't like they asked about scenarios at DRV, AFD, UAA, and RFPP. - jc37 11:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I concur with @Lourdes. This is a multi-part question, and to quote policy: “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.” - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 11:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Again, the intent was disparate questions. But if this is being interpreted this way, maybe we need another RFC to clarify again. - jc37 11:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My interpretation is the same as Jc37's; they're the same question, with multiple scenarios to allow editors to fully understand the answer. BilledMammal (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I guess it can be read either way. In such a case of different scenarios, what if Prodraxis had given 10 examples? I am not trying to make a point; but the two-part limit was brought in to save us common sense interpretation of how much is too much. Thanks, Lourdes 11:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    They didn't. Though I'd agree that 10 examples might be pushing it. But when doing these sort of things, so to get a decent understanding, asking only 2 examples, is going to be a problem of Selection bias/Sampling bias (like cherry-picking). I think 3-5 examples is probably just about right. It would match typical practices of fact-checking among other things. - jc37 12:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I do not understand how selection bias is altered by allowing an editor to make up five examples rather than making up just two. This isn't comparable to fact-checking, because hypothetical examples are not facts. The editor in question selected all of the examples regardless. To put it another way, increasing the number of cherries per person doesn't in any way stop them from being picked. ~TPW 14:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    While I think that this is ok, I also doubt that the two extra would do much more. The one I don't like the most is the sysops one as the others did give interesting responses. ✶Mitch199811 23:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think giving ten examples is like asking for a five hundred word reply; it's permitted by the rules, but the community would not blame the candidate for ignoring the request. BilledMammal (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree with BilledMammal on this. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I also don't think this qualifies as multiple questions. Four examples is reasonable when assessing the policy knowledge of someone who works in a particular area. If it were 12 or even 8 examples, I might be questioning it, but I don't think 4 is unreasonable. Valereee (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Some previous discussions about this from a cursory search of the WT:RfA archives: [17][18][19]. Consensus seems to be that they're fine if they're relevant to the candidate's Q1. (Although, the latest discussion there was from 2017 so I may not have found any more recent ones.) The multi-part question limitation was intended to stop two unrelated questions from being asked in one (e.g. "Can you explain CSD criteria X in your own words and also will you be open to recall?"). ansh.666 15:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The question here posits a single scenario and there's no way to break it up into non-repetitive discrete questions so it clearly does not run afoul of that standard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Whoa, whoa, whoa. I did not expect this to happen regarding my RfA question. I was AFK for most of the day today. I know this is just going to be moot as the candidate already answered the question, but just to clarify I did not intend at all to ask "multiple questions disguising as one" but rather wanted to put the candidate in a hypothetical situation that admins often find themselves in to see how they react. #prodraxis connect 00:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]



About RfB

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert

{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}

into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.

Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.

Current nominations for bureaucratship

There are no current nominations.

Related pages

Footnotes

  1. ^ Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 248#Extended confirmed?
  2. ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
  3. ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.

Leave a Reply