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 :) --
Tawker20:17, 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 --
Tawker05:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Support - Pending answers to questions, although I imagine he would make a wonderful admin. Good luck with it!
HawkerTyphoon20:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Edit: Having seen answers, changed support ot strongreply
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
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?)
abakharev23:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)reply
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
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
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 :) -
Glen08:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)reply
super duper support joshbuddy in my experince is responsible thoughtful and knowlegable on wikipedia, just the kind of pepole we want to give adminship!!
Benon14:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)reply
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|guy15:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)reply
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
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
Support responsible, committed and capable editor, with nothing to indicate admin tools will not be used in the same way.
Tyrenius12:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
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
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. Brisvegas09:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
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
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.
Nezzadar00:43, 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 --
Tawker19:30, 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
Gee, I thought edicountis was a bad thing :o - Thanks for the trust though. May we assume the above is an "weak" oppose? --
Tawker04:04, 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? ;) --
Rory09605:49, 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 --
Tawker19:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)reply
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. ;-)--Andeh06:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Teke04:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)reply
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.—
Perceval00:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
MichaelBillington01:18, 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. --
Tawker14:53, 22 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,
talk00:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
AdamBiswanger104:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)reply
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
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 -
tk05:50, 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,
talk06:05, 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.--Andeh18:46, 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 --
Tawker20:08, 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.
Teke05:22, 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!
NSLE03:41, 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? --
Tawker03:50, 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.
Lucy02:26, 26 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)
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:
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.
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. Λυδαcιτγ21:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)reply
A new user with infinite patience and the most wonderful enthusiasm makes a minor edit against
WP:MoS, and keeps re-making the edit, apolgising to everyone in turn. They won't listen to the community, and won't listen to your requests to stop making the edits. However, the user is not trolling, merely making the same edit, over and over and over again. How much patience do you give them - and how do you resolve the situation?
HawkerTyphoon23:12, 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.
joshbuddytalk00:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)reply
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,
talk14:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)reply
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,
talk20:38, 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.