Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Josiah Rowe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Josiah_Rowe

final (54/2/1) ending 06:15 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Josiah_Rowe (talk · contribs) – I am honored to nominate Josiah Rowe, who has demonstrated himself to be a level headed, courteous and thoughtful Wikipedian. Josiah has been an active editor for nearly a year (since March 2005), with over 4700 edits on 1700 unique pages. He has won praise from many others for his excellent work and attitude on Wikipedia. Josiah has demonstrated a willingness to take on challenging issues behind the scenes, and shown himself to be cool in potentially confrontrational matters.LeflymanTalk 02:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Omgzorzzz first post!!!!1111!!!!oneoneone JIP | Talk 08:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support - excellent Wikipedian who I have worked with on Doctor Who WikiProject. Essexmutant 08:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. --Adrian Buehlmann 09:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. -- Michael Warren | Talk 09:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support, per nom. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 10:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support edits look good.--MONGO 11:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Proto||type 12:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support Wikipedia needs more administrators. Would be an excellent sysop. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. A careful, constructive, and courteous editor who doesn't lose his head under stress. (At least, that's why I offered to nominate him myself a while back.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support per above.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support: because administrator privileges should be No Big Deal, right? Swatjester 17:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support Josiah is a fantastic editor and is always very level headed. Tim | meep in my general direction 17:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support, everything seems to be in order. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. Strong Support, Josiah has, where I have encountered him, demonstrated a very level headed approach that will serve him well as an admin. Hiding talk 19:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 21:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. support - seems like a solid user. aa v ^ 22:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  17. support - looks very good abakharev 23:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support--M W Johnson 00:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support, looks good to me. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support, looks good. —Kirill Lokshin 01:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support, as per nom... oh wait, I am the nom. :) Josiah is one of those humble individuals who doesn't like to toot his own horn, which is why he had to be asked three times to stand for RfA before he finally accepted.—LeflymanTalk 04:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support. Seen this user around, good impression. Has shown dedication to his WikiProject of choice. enochlau (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support. Josiah's an excellent Wikipedian, and has really earned the adminship. Baryonyx 07:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. Sprry, Doc, I disagree. If someone proves themselves to be a truly trustworthy Wikipedian and positive contributor, they deserve adminship. haz (user talk)e 09:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support--Jusjih 09:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. Welcome aboard. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support without reservation. Always polite, friendly, and does plenty of good work. Have encountered him plenty of times in the Project namespace. —Whouk (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support --Latinus (talk (el:)) 22:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 23:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support, very solid editor, give him the mop. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 23:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support solid Mjal 02:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support good editor. --rogerd 04:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support go for it. pschemp | talk 04:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support, very reasonable and polite. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  36. support: Good contributor, merits advancement. Ombudsman 04:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support, finally.--Sean Black (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 11:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 14:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support good editor who will make a good admin. TMS63112 20:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support. I rarely vote in these, but I rarely see someone come by that I'm passingly familiar with who shows that they have the stuff, either. Enthusiastic support. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support - Hahnchen 00:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support. BD2412 T 02:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support and marvel at the quality of candidates so far (four users with only two opposes between them). No matter how small the contribution he intends to make, I'm sure it will be for the good. Raven4x4x 09:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support All in 15:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support will do great job.Gator (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support --Ugur Basak 21:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 02:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support. Seems like a nice person. Thumbelina 17:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support. I saw his comments on T-man and Dyslexic agnostic's RfAr. He comes off as thoughtful and level-headed.--Shanel 01:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support Answers to question were thoughtful. FloNight talk 01:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 22:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support. Seems like an editor who won't abuse the tools. -- DS1953 talk 04:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Doesn't seem to want to do anything as an admin Cynical 12:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cynical. Ardenn 17:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: as I said to Cynical, I have a great deal of respect for admins who use the mop and bucket to keep the floors clean, a task which needs to be performed on a regular basis. However, I think that adminship can also be a plunger, a tool which one uses rarely but which it's extraordinarily useful to have on hand in emergencies. And I think that perspective is in keeping with adminship being "no big deal". However, I respect the view that all admins should be active moppers. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Excellent article editor, so I won't oppose. But, really not a lot of contribution to project space, and not a lot of evidence from the answers that the candidate needs the tools. Given recent events, I think we could do with creating far fewer admins. --Doc ask? 17:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 95% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 06:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • See Josiah_Rowe's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I probably won't be changing my routine a huge amount, although I will keep an eye on WP:AN and related pages and chip in when I think I can be helpful in disputes. Several pages on my watchlist (such as Trojan War) are frequent vandal targets, so the administrator's revert will be handy. I don't anticipate using the blocking tool very often. As for the backlog, I think I could be useful at Wikipedia:Third opinion (although I realize that one doesn't need to be a sysop to help there).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Pages I've created include Liir, The Pirate Queen, Bernard Krigstein, James Cobban (still a work in progress), List of historical people portrayed as villains (spun off from list of villains) and Julie Gardner. Some of these remain mostly my own work, while others (such as Bernard Krigstein) have benefited hugely from the contributions of others. In 2005 I did quite a bit of work on List of villains, but I've neglected that page recently. I'm a regular contributor to the Doctor Who WikiProject, and have performed a lot of maintainance on pages related to Doctor Who. I created the current table format at the almanac-style pages Lengths of science fiction series and Doctor Who DVD releases. And just for fun, I expanded winged monkeys from a stub to its current status.
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. I've had a few disagreements with other Wikipedians over content and style, and I think I've done a pretty good job in assuming good faith and keeping cool during disputes. When TheDoctor10 was revert warring on Doctor Who pages, I explained Wikipedia policy to him politely and suggested we use mediation or one of the other available methods of dispute resolution [1], [2]. His behavior eventually led to an RfC, and you can see my involvement at the RfC's talk page.
I also had a disagreement with T-man, the Wise Scarecrow at List of villains, and my account of it and how it was resolved can be found at the current ArbCom case about T-Man and Dyslexic Agnostic. It may say something about my diplomatic ability that T-Man and Dyslexic Agnostic, who have been very upset with each other during this ArbCom case, both thanked me for giving a fair and impartial account of my (somewhat peripheral) involvement in their dispute.
Finally, I've helped with a few disputes that I wasn't involved in myself. For example, I followed an RfC to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and helped develop the consensus to spin controversial material out into Political interpretations of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.
I plan on continuing to resolve disputes in the same fashion as I've done in the past, with respect for all participants and basing my decisions on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I'm constantly surprised at how much can be achieved by simply assuming good faith — a policy I've adopted in my real life as well. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.