Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Josh Grosse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Josh Grosse

final (14/0/0) ending 10:33 March 14, 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Grosse has edited since February of 2001, and with over 6000 contributions, I think he is more than deserving of adminship. --Ryan! | Talk 10:33, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

I accept, thank you. Josh

Support

  1. Ryan! | Talk 10:34, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. It doesn't hurt to give the sysop flag to domain experts, and four years meets my time standard ;-) jni 10:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. This has got to be a joke - he's been here four whole years and still isn't an admin! What? We'll have to do something about that, won't we! Strongly support. David Cannon 12:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support, a good user. Although he should remember to archive his talk page and not blank it. Rje 17:27, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
    I would have thought that it's a free choice for any user whether to archive their Talk pages or not. — Matt Crypto 10:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    It is, but I think blanking can look a little suspicous. I know Josh has nothing to hide, but I think admins should be as open as possible. It's no biggie though. Rje 14:29, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
    In all honesty, I don't think it's useful to archive discussions after things are settled. Anything important should be moved onto standards pages. Josh
  5. Support, Excellent work on taxonomy. Onco p53 20:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support — Matt Crypto 10:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. An overdue nomination for a fine editor. Support. Neutralitytalk 22:41, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Faaaaabulous. --Slowking Man 06:50, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Vote moved to support. Jordi·✆ 07:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  10. As said above, he probably shouldn't blank his talk page, but that aside he's been around for ages and knows what he's doing, so I support without hesitation. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:44, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  11. Sure. --JuntungWu 13:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  12. Good microbiology work, understands the system. JFW | T@lk 22:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  13. Yes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:13, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Darwinek 21:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  15. I only vote about people I know, and I know enough about Mr Grosse to be impressed. →Iñgōlemo← talk 05:41, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

I'm waiting for user acceptance. Jordi·✆ 16:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments

I make it a practice to read the talk pages of a candidate before voting. I don't know how to do that in this case (without hitting the history button many, many times). Jonathunder 05:37, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I'd accept the position, but I don't think I'd use it much - since I don't scan special:Recentchanges, I wouldn't notice most issues. For the most part, I'd probably just do deletions of accidental creations and revert moves.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I'm particularly happy with the articles on groups of protists - e.g. Amoebozoa, actinophryid. These were largely created by myself, and I think it's reasonable to suppose many of the modern groups would not have articles otherwise.
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 will deal with it in the future?
A. I probably have, but not many cases where one option is intolerable. I tend to stay away from the extremely controversial topics here.