Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jossi


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

Jossifresco
[ Vote here]  (45/2/0) ending 01:09 October 15, 2005 (UTC)

– Jossifresco is a great guy, he does RC patrol all the time and is active in the community. In addition to the usual admin stuff, he is working on actual articles (getting Human up to FA status), which is sorely lacking in some admin candidates these days. kate's tool has him at around 4600 edits, with plenty of those being to the wikipedia namespace, for those who care about editcountis. -Greg Asche (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thanks. &asymp; jossi fresco &asymp; 01:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support As nominator (almost forgot, but Essjay reminded me. Thanks Essjay) -Greg Asche (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. (You're welcome, Greg.) -- Essjay ·  Talk 01:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Good User --JAranda | yeah 01:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Good janitor --Rogerd 02:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support as per Essjay (in all things, unto Essjay) - User:Mys e kurity|Mysekurity ]] additions | e-mail ]]03:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, I've seen this user around. →Jo urna list   >>talk<<  03:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support This user removes vandalism a lot and had a high edit count  &#9786;  A  d a m 1213  &#9786; | talk  03:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's got to be the winner of the coveted "gaudiest signature ever" award. --Durin 15:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Thoughtful on substance, works toward consensus, and takes initiative on grunt work.   &mdash; RDF talk 03:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Agree with GregAsche and RDF. In addition, he responds promptly and courteously to messages on his Talk page, takes time to explain things, and graciously accepts edits and suggestions by others. Finell 03:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Private Butcher, your standards are absurdly high. Andre ( talk ) 04:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support see him around all the time and is very sound.  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  05:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Merovingian (t) (c) 06:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support CambridgeBayWeather 07:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, active vandalfighter with good judgement. --JoanneB 08:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, this guy is an excellent vandal fighter. Rje 11:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. First rate vandal-fighter! Owen&times; &#9742;  12:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support I wouldn't think that editcountitis would be an issue with 4600 edits! This user has a good way of dealing with other users. Bratsche talk 13:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support should be good admin. Alf melmac 14:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support a fellow RC patroller.  Rob e  rt  15:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) double support this guy really deserves the adminship, he's helping us a lot with RC --( &#x263A; drini &#x266B; | &#x260E; ) 15:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) support he did good on vandal-busting and 4,600 edits is way plenty. --Isolani 15:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Fire  Fox esp 17:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support; yes, definitely. Lots of good work, including versus vandals, for which he could use the keys to the admin closet.  Antandrus  (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support - yes! A valued member of the community we can trust with the mop. --HappyCamper 19:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Kirill Lokshin 20:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) S'port vandal-slayers need weapons --Doc (?) 08:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Yes.  enceph  alon  10:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 17:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support I was about to revert some vandalism on Periodic Table, only to see that Jossi had beaten me to the punch. That and his vote for my Rfa make this an easy choice. Karmafist 23:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Vandal patrolling is often a thankless job.  Jossi's adminship will at least make it a more efficient thankless job.  Jkelly 16:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. Troll-slayers deserve the mop and the flamethrower! Tito xd (?!?) 02:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Cool. --JuntungWu 07:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. Friday (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Support, (I almost missed his RFA!). Excellent contributor to hundreds of articles and a good vandalfighter. Worked with him extensively on the Prem Rawat collection of articles last year, and I admire his capacity to withstand abuse, personal attacks and the stress that came with it. Since these early days, Jossi has shown that he is a valuable contributor to this project and is most deserving of the mop and bucket! --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 04:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. Good vandal slayer. --GraemeL (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Support for all of the reasons given above and for his contributions to the troubled article List of people who have said that they are gods. --goethean &#2384;  16:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Support. Intersofia 22:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) Support. El_C 03:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) Strong support I came here by accident, I was on Jossi's user page to ask him for help with a page badly wounded and desperately in need of attention. I know him to be a thoughtful neutral party, working together with him bringing Human towards FA status. If only Jossi were an admin, he could be even yet more helpful! Sam Spade 21:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) Support. To me Jossi represents new thinking, something desparately needed. Like me he prefers an emic POV on things, especially new religious movements, counteracting common prejudices. -- mizar &#2384; Talk 01:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) Support. I am currently up for an RfA as well and I totally understand how the oppose votes sometimes focus on the wrong qualities. You look good to me. --ScottyBoy900Q 20:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 35) Support. As per nomination. --pgk( talk ) 20:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 36) Support. Sarge Baldy 20:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 37) Support. KHM03 22:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 38) Support. I have seen Jossi in action working on the Human article.  Seems to be a very constructive editor who strives to reach consensus in a polite way. Also, I have not seen Jossie lobbying for support with regard to this vote.  I too stumbled across it re: Sam Spade's comment above. David D. (Talk) 23:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * Oppose, I think this person for being here so long needs more edits, so then I know that this person would be an active admin. Therefore I have to oppose. Sorry forgot to sign, I'll just sign now, and erase the old "signing". Private Butcher 03:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, why is a low-activity admin a problem? N (t/c) 16:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a problem because they should be active in wikipedia, since they'd be admins FOR wikipedia. Therefore they should be very active in all things, articles, RfAs, User Talks, etc. They should know all about how wikipedia works by experiencing it by being very active. That's just what I think, I know you all disagree with me, but it's just what I think. Privat  e   Butcher  17:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it's unreasonable to expect an admin to be active all the time. If you look at Requests for adminship/Standards not one of 60 have put "must be active all the time to be an admin" as a prerequisite for becoming an admin. It is normal to expect normal users and admins to have breaks from wikipedia like vacations, sickness, exams, work related travel, deaths in family etc. and normal "wikibreaks" just to relax. Wikipedia is not a job for editors or admins, it's all voluntary. So Your insistence of having "active admins" is very curious as it is not expected of admins. Admins are not some 24/7 editing/RC patrolling "elite breed", they are just normal editors with more tools available. Best You can do is put Your sig under Neutral, if you still think this being a problem. I hope you consider this and all the best otherwise. feydey 18:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't bitch at me about this ever again, I don't give a damn, I try to vote to make wikipedia better, and you tell me "oh you're reasons are wrong", there are no "wrong or right reasons". I have reasons, I expect them to be active a lot, alright, why? Because if they want to be admins they should treat it like a job. I removed my vote because you bitch at me, and I'm tired of it, and I can't vote neutral either because I'll get bitched about that too. So I refuse to support your bastard canididates, I do oppose, but since you're making me remove my vote I will. Privat  e   Butcher  19:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You don't have to remove your vote just because he wants you to, you are entitled to vote however you want. Please do try to keep the hostility down though. Cheers. -Greg Asche (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I apologize for being hostile, but it just bothers me that I can't vote how I want without being complained to. All I did was vote which way I thought was best, but I'm sorry for saying what I said. Privat  e   Butcher  20:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. No bad feelings. &asymp; jossi fresco &asymp; 21:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I would ask the admins who count the votes to count Private Butcher's. He clearly states that he did not withdraw his vote because he had any second thoughts about the candidate's fitness, but rather because he was harassed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * By "harassed" I assume that you mean "asked a simple question". --goethean &#2384;  18:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Strong Oppose Recent POV pushing on List of people who have said that they are gods leaves bitter taste in my mouth. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting that your considered my intervention as "POV pushing". All I was trying to do was to assist in a bitter dispute by making proposals, attempting to keep editors talking to each other and when all failed, posting an RfC that was well responded to. You can read my comments at Talk:List_of_people_who_have_said_that_they_are_gods. &asymp; jossi fresco &asymp; 22:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I hate it when RFA candidates try to attack oppose votes. Like I'm just going to let you sit there and play martyr? How ironic - . Does your concept of "assisting in a bitter dispute by making proposals" include stepping into the middle of the dispute and enforcing your prefered version by reversion? Wait - how about your recent comment that the list is in shambles, needs to be revised so it looks like what you want or it should be deleted? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 01:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I invite you to continue this discussion in the talk page and to help in resolving the dispute on that article, if you want. &asymp; jossi fresco &asymp; 02:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't care about the article nearly as much as I care about what it says about your qualifications for adminstratorship. The passive-agressive editing on your part does not give me comfort. Your lack of understanding of my problem (your editing, not your edits) gives me even less. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 03:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose. Jossifresco lacks the most important traits that an admin must have, integrity and honesty.  Examples?  Argued that Criticism of Prem Rawat should be deleted because the view of Prem Rawat's critics "do not deserve more than a short mention as already included in Prem_Rawat."  What makes this a show of utter lack of integrity?  The fact that Jossi had created that very article himself, stating "Opposing views can be added here".  It's hardly the only time that Jossi has both taken a role shaping an article of "opposing views" and then called for it to be deleted because of factors that never seemed to bother him when he was supposedly working for the good of the article.,  In general, what Jossi prescribes for "opposing views" is always different from the views he is in sympathy with.  Here, he argues that List of purported cults must get deleted because "NPOV requires that a controversial subject is treated in such way that the controversy is described and conflicting views be given a balanced coverage. This cannot happen here and thus, this article is POV and fundamentally flawed."   Yet when the new religious movement is the source of the accusation, Jossi shows no concern at all for whether there is "balanced coverage" of the accusation -- only for whether the accusation itself goes in.  I also like how he describes "serious POV conflicts during the editing last year of the Prem Rawat articles with one active WP editor and few anons."  I'd suggest anyone who wants to know how far Jossi can be trusted look up those conflicts and see how many more than "one active WP editor" was involved.  No, Jossi is not someone who can be trusted with admin powers. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I followed these links and the only thing I read on all these, is an editor engaged in discussions about making articles NPOV and contributing in a civil and measured manner.--ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 04:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. That's because you also believe that what is the "NPOV" way of handling an accusation is different depending on whether your NRM is on the business end or pulling the trigger.  Even if you were a party with sufficient integrity to be a judge of Jossi's or anyone else's integrity (which you are not) what you've said is only a distraction from the real issue:  does Jossi talk the talk about NPOV?  or does he walk the walk?  The edits I cited show clearly that he can talk a great game about NPOV, all day long, but somehow what he deems NPOV for the goose will always be different from NPOV for the gander. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * All I can see is only, that you have a different POV than Jossi, don't mistake this for NPOV. In fact I do not believe that there is anything like an absolute NPOV. You mentioned List of purported cults and stated that Jossis views were POV. But it is agreed among sociologist that the word cult or sect are not to be used anymore for new relgious groups, because they have a very clear negative perception in the public, and as such the word in itself is in fact POV. Any religion, and any religious view started out as a sect. Attempts of such lists as the one you mentioned and of course the List_of_people_who_have_said_that_they_are_gods, where a category is created, are very likely to create strong POV, especially if one lumps together criminals (Manson etc) with purported people of divine origin (like Jesus), in fact in order to make a statement by such comparisons, instead of differentiating between them and seeing each case in its own religious context. To point this out, and to see the danger of discrimination of minorities inherent in such an approach is not POV, but rather the task of an Admin. And I hope very much for you that you are not taking offense on his personal beliefs or mine or Zappaz's for that matter, and say we are all POV because we belong to one or the other NRG. This would in fact say more about your non- NPOV than his. About the article Criticism of Prem Rawat: It is indeed difficult to understand, why criticsim is not integrated into the main article about Prem Rawat, and if it is there already, why there should be a separate article. I have seen the same discussion in the german WP, and there was not even a disagreemant that there couldn't be two articles. And of course in the main article, the views need to be balanced. What that means in each individual case is of course a matter of dispute and opinion. And I don't think there is anything like an absolute neutrality. If you believe so, you are indeed strong POV taking your own opinion to be neutrality. -- mizar &#2384; Talk 10:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It is not Jossi's standards that bother me. It is the clear evidence of his double standards that bothers me.  If he had created Criticism of Prem Rawat and said "Opposing views can go here", and then spoke up in the deletion discussion and said "we shouldn't delete this because it's where opposing views were encouraged to go", that would be consistent.  If he had not created Criticism of Prem Rawat and had then advocated for its deletion, stating that critical views "do not deserve more than a short mention as already included in Prem_Rawat", that would be consistent.  It is the fact that Jossi created the article to hold opposing views and called for those opposing views to be deleted as not deserving their own article, that should give pause to anyone considering entrusting him with admin powers.  It is not just that he helped to develop the criteria determining which allegations of cultic nature would be listed at List of purported cults.  It is not just that he argued for the deletion of List of purported cults, stating that the criteria of the article made it "original research", and that accusations presented without "balanced coverage" of "opposing views" were inherently POV.  It is not just that he himself pushed for the unneeded inclusion of an accusation against a group, without balanced coverage of opposing views.  It is that he did all three which is cause for concern.  These double standards require a good explanation.  What they do not deserve is an attack on the messenger, alleging that that person is simply motivated by holding the opposing POV, rather than the documented evidence that the candidate has exhibited favoritism and double standards unacceptable from anyone of any POV.
 * Finally, I would like to know your basis for that very surprising statement, "it is agreed among sociologist that the word cult or sect are not to be used anymore for new relgious groups"? That's a very surprising statement; I'd like to know who said that and which sociologists they had the authority to speak for.  However, since that's completely off-topic to the current discussion, it would be better to discuss it on one of our talk pages. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 *  "it is agreed among sociologist that the word cult or sect are not to be used anymore for new relgious groups"? That's a very surprising statement; I'd like to know who said that and which sociologists they had the authority to speak for.  However, since that's completely off-topic to the current discussion, it would be better to discuss it on one of our talk pages. If you don't want to discuss issues (like Jossi's reaction to the term cult), don't bring them up as an argument. If you think it's an argument, why not bring it up here? I am not running for Admin, so why should it be on my talk page? I have all the arguments from the german page about de:Sekte (sect:scientific). It says:Das Münchner Rechtslexikon schreibt zum Beispiel, der Begriff „Sekte“ habe in staatsrechtlicher Hinsicht seine Bedeutung verloren, da er eine negative theologische Beurteilung enthalte.(The Munich Lexicon of Law writes, the term 'Sekte'(= cult) has lost its legal meaning, since it contains a negative theological judgement) -- mizar &#2384; Talk 22:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments
 * I know this edit count thing has taken some twists and turns, but here's my Gold Standard for how much edit counts relate to someone's contributions to Wikipedia: Jimbo's edits >;-o)    &mdash; RDF talk 05:38, 9 October 2005 (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 am currently spending 60% of my time on RC patrol and new page patrol, and intend to continue doing so. I also check for copyvios and welcome new users and ip users that contribute good stuff. I have been also answering questions at the Reference desk (Humanism) and I find that quite rewarding (I know that is not an admin task, but it keeps me sharp...).
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. That probably would be the series of articles I started a few weeks ago on Category:Book design and Typography. I intend to create 200 articles featuring the most known typefaces, with samples. I am also proud of my work at Human, that hopefully will be submitted to FAC soon. There are also several other articles that I am proud of, not only because of their content, but because they were fun to edit in a collaborative environment.
 * 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. Yes. I had serious POV conflicts during the editing last year of the Prem Rawat articles with one active WP editor and few anons. I even got serious anonymous hate mail, that prompted me to abandon WP for a while. What I have realized is that time and patience and the aggregated effort of many editors are the best tool to ensure fairness and NPOV in articles about subjects that are controversial. Trust the community: it works. I have learned to trust that. Nowadays, and as the articles are somewhat stable, I keep myself busy on other areas such as Digital art, Typography and Book design articles.
 * 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.