Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Nihonjoe

(57/13/3); Scheduled to end at 16.00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Nihonjoe (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) - A dedicated and steadfast member to the encyclopedia and its community, Nihonjoe has been with us since September 2005 with the experience of the mop since May 2006. He has been an active, trusted editor and participant in process, particularly noted for his contributions on WikiProject Japan and its related articles.

Nihonjoe's last RfB did not reach consensus, as some participants voiced out that the timing of candidacy then was not appropriate as "backlog was at its lowest point", forming almost all of the objections in his bureaucratship. This argument is no longer sound in the light of Essjay's resignation, with its subsequent three nominations falling on their feet. In particular, Wikipedians have pointed out concerns that the timing of their RfBs suggest possibly, "an opportunity to grab power from the corpse".

Bureaucratship is not a Tun-ship - There is no statutory limit of 25 positions, and we should not impose any artificial cap that would deny any capable editor with the capability to carry out its responsibilities with integrity and fairness. There is no diminishing returns in having extra hands to close RfAs, renames and bot-flagging; RfB should not act as a band-aid fix only when bureaucratship work piles up. If we were to continue holding this position, we would find ourselves quickly stuck in a Catch 22 situation - The former when one bureaucrat leaves, and the latter in peacetimes making RfBs impossible to pass. Too few bureaucrats might also translate into the lack of diversity in opinions in decision of landmark RfAs when the time comes; I'm pretty sure no one wants to see the day RfA becomes a one-man-show.

I have confidence in Nihonjoe's previous RfB philosophy to be sound and solid, and still be this time round in judging the consensus of the community. Henceforth, it is my honour to hereby nominate him to run for bureaucratship again, and I believe that this will be the first of many more editors to be entrusted with the extra tools, and uphold the principles of bureaucratship to make it truly "no big deal". - Mailer Diablo

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thank you for the nomination. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Candidate statement
As indicated in my previous RfB, I'm dedicated to helping out the community whenever and wherever I can, and I still think I have a lot more to offer the community. I understand the additional trust required for being a bureaucrat, and how important it is to maintain transparency in all actions, avoid any possible conflict of interest (or even the appearance of such), and that I would be responsible to make sure I was following policy and the general consensus of the community. I appreciate the great trust that Mailer Diablo has shown in me by nominating me, and I will do my best to never violate that trust. Thank you. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


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 participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
A. Yes, I've read them, as well as all the recent discussions regarding ideas for reformation of those criteria. At the moment, an RfA candidate is generally promoted when 75% or more of those participating support the promotion of the candidate. The recent proposal (partially implemented on some recent RfAs) to remove the vote/!vote count from the top of the RfA makes determining this a little harder (though the summary box on the WP:BN page helps in that respect, when it's able to parse the page), and likely increases the time necessary to determine if that threshhold has been reached. For this reason, I think it's better to have the vote/!vote count on the page itself. However, I do like the non-separated discussion section (though that also makes it harder to determine a percentage (which, while everyone seems to not like "vote-itis", many of those same people also insist that this threshhold be maintained). For RfB, the general threshhold is 85%. In all cases, there is some discretion allowed, especially in the case of socks and very weak arguments on any side. This leads into the next question nicely. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
As there has been a lot of confusion below regarding this answer (even though the information in my answer is from the WP:RFA page and talk page), I'm posting this clarification. There is a camp of people at gets all upset any time someone uses the dreaded "vote" word. Call them what you will, but people are offering their opinions on the matter, and that's a vote. Now, that said, that doesn't mean they are handled in the same manner as in an election, because they are not handled that way here. In the case of RfA/Bs, bureaucrats must go through the full discussion and determine, based on the comments and discussion, the consensus of the community regarding the RfA/B candidate. It is very likely (based on past RfAs) that RFA candidates with support opinions from 75% or more of those participating will very likely be promoted (thought this may not always be the case). This is an established fact, and no amount of complaining about "vote counting" will change that. However, I believe that in all these cases, regardless of the percentage of support, oppose, or neutral, that b'crats must make the decision based on a fair evaluation of the discussion and comments presented, not based on how many offered an opinion one way or another. Consensus is the key here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. I think the best example of this is the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny/Bureaucrat chat. While there were some people who disagreed with the final decision (and there usually are in these cases, or they wouldn't be contentious, would they?), I thought that having the discussion there was excellent. And while I think it would have been better for someone other than Dan to close the RfA (due to the possible appearance of a conflict of interest), the discussion and decision-making were there in the open for anyone to see so that no valid accusations of a real COI could be made as the decision was very clearly discussed and decided there. I think it's very important to maintain this transparency, especially in situations that are not always that clear at first glance. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
A. I think my record speaks for itself. I always try to be fair in all my dealings here, even in cases where I may not personally like the decision. In some cases, I've even stated that, while I personally disagreed with something, policy stated otherwise and therefore must be adhered to. When I've made mistakes, I've admitted as much and apologized, then corrected it. If you are looking for someone who will never make mistakes, you will never find what you are looking for. I think it's more important to do my best to be fair, adhere to policy, and be civil when working with others. If a mistake is made (which is inevitable as I'm not perfect), it will then be only a small mistake that is easily fixed. If I ever have any doubt, I carefully review any applicable policies, and ask others for input or thoughts on what I'm considering. This process has been useful and successful for me. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
4. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on any other forum during the course of nominations and especially when making a decision? And to discuss issues of promotion or non-promotion only with other bureaucrats, in their talk, or at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard where such discussion would be transparent?
A. Yes. As I indicated above, I think transparency is important. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?
A. Yes. I already visit WP:RFA almost daily, and regularly participate there. The others will not be a problem. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Optional 6 from Deskana. What do you think of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moralis?
A. I'm not sure of the exact intent of this question as it's rather vague, but I'll do my best to answer it. I think you are meaning to ask what I think of the change in format for that particular RfA. I like that it is focusing more on getting good discussion going regarding the candidate. I think it's important that the candidate and their qualifications be discussed rather than people simply voting/!voting "Support", "Oppose", or "Neutral" without giving any reason why. In my own recent voting/!voting, I've tried to offer reasoning behind my vote/!vote in order to avoid the appearance of simply jumping on one bandwagon or another. I think the intent behind the format changes are good, though they may need a little more tweaking (especially since it seems that Tangobot can't parse the discussion due to those changes, so the chart on WP:BN isn't updating properly). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
My comment regarding the bot appears to not be as clear as it could be. The new format being used on the Moralis RfA is not being understood by the bot, so the chart on WP:BN isn't updating properly. Therefore, if we adopt the new format, a change will need to be made (likely to the bot) so that the new format is understood and the chart updates properly. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Question 7. How important is for you that there is consistency and fairness to all candidates when promoting? How would you have closed Danny's RfA (a few socks and a few weak votes nonwithstanding)? (This is obviously a cheap shot, but I believe an answer is important, sorry about that.) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
A. As you indicate, this is a loaded question if ever there was one (especially given the fact that I voted to support the RfA), but I'll do my best to answer it. I think the way the decision-making was handled on Danny's RfA was just the way it should have been handled. It was obviously a contentious issue for some, and I think the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny/Bureaucrat chat page was an excellent idea as it made sure transparency was maintained in the discussion. As I had voted in the RfA, I would not have closed it myself. However, if I had not voted in it, I would have gone with the consensus among participating b'crats. I understand this decision was hard for some to accept, but I think the process worked the way it should have. It was very transparent, and while I think someone else should have pushed the button, the button pushing as merely procedural once the involved b'crats made the final decision. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Good answer so far. But my question was more about your own opinion, not about whether you'd go with the consensus (note that the bureaucrats did state their own opinions before the consensus kicked in). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I think, given all the issues considered in that RfA, the right decision was made. I would have supported the promotion for the support reasons stated on that page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been very impressed by your answers. I must regretfully oppose however, for reasons stated in the oppose vote. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Optional 8 from RxS. Is RFA broken? As opposed to not perfect? What kind of priority do you place on making improvements?
A. Another loaded question. (^_^) I don't think anything is ever perfect, and things can always be improved. I've been watching the various discussions regarding ideas for improvements and changes to the RfA process, and there are some interesting ideas there. However, I don't think my RfB is the proper place for discussing anything specific. I will say that I'm always open to any improvements to the various processes here on Wikipedia, and I'll give any ideas the consideration they are due. I know this is a somewhat vague response to your question, but as I indicated, I don't think an RFB (or an RfA) is the best place to grandstand for specific change. Suffice it to say, if a change is made to a policy or procedure, I'll make sure I follow it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I certainly didn't mean to ask a pointedly loaded question, and I agree that this isn't the place to necessarily discuss specific change. Let me ask you another way, how do you feel about the apparent attempt to expand the bureaucrat's mandate at RFA by allowing them more freedom to discount good faith opposers to the extent that they can decide not to factor into their RFA decisions those oppose rationales that they don't personally believe are relevant? RxS 11:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Loaded questions are fun. (^_^) I think that as long as a consensus is reached on which, if any, additional latitude should be granted to bureaucrats, I will be fine with it. And as I've indicated above, I have encountered situations before where I personally disagreed with one point or another of policy, but I still went along with it because it was policy. I think the way to change policy is through discussion, not pushing the boundaries to get what you want. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Optional 9 from Walton. Where do you stand on the importance of community consensus vs. bureaucrat discretion in RfA? In other words, do you think bureaucrats should count the votes and promote on the basis of numerical consensus, or read the arguments and come to their own decision? (Or a mixture of the two?)
A. Bureaucrats should promote based on community consensus. There is some discretion allowed (according to currently accepted policies and procedures for this process), so the community in general believes that bureaucrats need to be able to evaluate the discussion and determine consensus based on that evaluation. They should not simply count all the supports, opposes, and neutrals, and use a formula to determine if a certain threshold has been reached. The discussions must be evaluated if a consensus is to be determined, and as I've indicated before in these discussions, I believe this is the only way to evaluate RfAs (and RfBs).
Sorry if this sounds like a rehash of comments I've already posted, but it's because (to me) this appears to simply be a rewording of the same question I've been asked already a few times (not that I hold that against you...I'm happy to answer any questions posted here). As the currently accepted policies and procedures stand, RfAs and RfBs are decided by consensus, not counting votes. If policy is changed, I'll follow the new policy, but until then, they are decided by consensus. Period. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Question 10 from Haukur Are you familiar with the RFA procedures of other large Wikipedias, such as the German and Japanese ones? What do you think of those procedures, in comparison with the one currently used over here? Haukur 17:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
A. I have not really spent time on any other language versions of Wikipedia. I've made minor edits (such as interwiki links), but other than that, I've not really participated much on them, and I'm not familiar with their policies and procedures for RfA. I have looked over the page you linked, however, and it's interesting to see the wide range of processes and requirements for adminship on other language wikis. I think it's good there are differences, as that shows that each group is deciding its own policies without influence (necessarily) from any other source than those participating in their wiki. I think it would be good to continue expanding that page, as we may find some good ideas from other wikis that may work here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
General comments
  • See Nihonjoe's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • I should note that while this RfB is going on, I will not be participating in voting/!voting on any of the current RfAs in order to avoid any possible conflict of interest (or even the appearance of such). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 14:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. No real substantive issues brought up in the previous RFB (I don't buy the "We don't need more bureaucrats" mantra), nor I see any that have occurred since then. I see him all over the place as well. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 16:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. I trust this user and his work around RfA. We're currently in a need for bureaucrats, thus Taxman's previous argument no longer applies. Michaelas10 16:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. I like the answer to #1 especially: RFA is not a vote, but it is kind of like one. Level of support, for whatever reasons, matters a lot. Nihonjoe's philosophy seems to fit well with the current core of Beaurocrats, and I'm very much in agreement with Mailer Diablo that the current level of workload should not matter -- surely, we should pick the best candidates, not just the ones who have good timing. Mangojuicetalk 16:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. I apologise for asking the vague question; you answered the question as I intended, which was with regards to the changes. I should have been a little clearer. Either way, I think you're fine for bureaucratship, and I just hope (as unlikely as it is) that this doesn't turn out to be another statistic proving the impossiblity of passing an RfB. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 16:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Terence 16:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support. A superb editor and administrator whose contributions have been invaluable and who will be an excellent bureaucrat. ···巌流? · Talk to Ganryuu 17:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support I think this candidate will make good use of the bureaucrat tools. Captain panda 20:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. Rlevse 23:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support — the english wikipedia has a requirement for Bureaucrats at this moment in time, and I don't see any basis for objections to this user not fufilling that role, and serving the community in yet another way. anthony[cfc] 23:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support There is almost nothing I don't like. I tend to agree with Oleg Alexandrov (rather than Durin) below but I don't feel that that is a reason to oppose. As a former admin who had voluntarily resigned without an on-wiki "cloud" Danny was in a rare position in which I think a lower threshold is reasonable and beaucrats should have discretion to ignore socks, SPA's, and opinions in violation of policy. Thus while I would say that Danny's RfA should have fallen into the when-in-doubt don't promote range I do feel that, given the chat, it was within the range of reasonably discretion and won't punish Nijonjoe for supporting it. Eluchil404 23:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support. PeaceNT 08:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support, per above. AW 09:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support - everything I have seen from this user shows wisdom and understanding of what Wikipedia is all about. I trust him to make sound decisions. Metamagician3000 10:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support Catchpole 11:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. I'm getting tired of repeating myself at RfB all the time, per my reasoning on the last nomination. Grandmasterka 11:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. Tony Sidaway 12:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Seems like a good chap, and I can't make any sense of the cited reasons for opposing.
  18. Support I like his answers and, as seems to be the way on RFB now, the opposition are imho clutching at straws. We can never have enough qualified, dedicated volunteers. --kingboyk 14:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support My trust in Mailer's nomination has a lot to do with my support here. Good answers to hard questions above also helped me decide. Finally, I'm convinced that candidate isn't on a mission to change a system that works well, for the most part. At this point, that's a good indicator in his favor. Xoloz 15:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support Nihonjoe has done a fantastic job as an administrator, and I have no doubt that he would do well as a bureaucrat. Nishkid64 16:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support I'm very impressed by the sincerity of Nihonjoe's answers, and his commitment to honesty and transparency. If we can't trust him, we can't trust anybody. YechielMan 23:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  22. OMG BUREAUCRAT PROMOTION THRESHOLD IS 90% NOT 85% STRONG OPPOSE. Anyway, I think it's a good thing that you believe RfAs with either very high or very low percentages shouldn't be analyzed as much; the community as a whole has to trust the user, so opposition can't just be overruled easily. -Amarkov moo! 01:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support - sensible admin. GracenotesT § 01:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support, I got no problems with him as a bureaucrat.--Wizardman 02:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support At least this time around the opposes are valid (versus to the last, when the closing bureaucrat should have disregarded all "we don't need more" opposes). They are not, however convincing. Nihonjoe understands how RfA works and how it should work. That he isn't one of the people regularly beating a dead horse about changing a system that is working but imperfect, and can only be replaced by something else imperfect, is no reason to oppose a candidate that actually wants to use the position to implement the will of the community. The disagreement with his opinion on how the Danny RFA closing should have gone is unconvincing also. As Wikipedia scales, there will come a day when we recognize that voting is the only useful tool for measuring the consensus of the community on issues that people care about. Mentioning the 100 opposes without mentioning the number of active supporters is not looking at the whole picture, and we do want the closing bureaucrats in an RfA to look at the whole picture. Nihonjoe has been active for a long time, and has not been a problem admin. He would be a sound addition to the bureaucrats. GRBerry 02:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support - strong understanding of process, willingness to patiently explain analysis. New bureaucrats always welcome. Warofdreams talk 02:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support as last time. Heimstern Läufer 06:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support as last time. Nihonjoe's admin work is first rate and I believe he has a strong understanding of concensus and the complexities that can be involved in assessing it. I encourage people not to oppose based on views of controversial promotions. It is a sure way to reach deadlock. There are no doubt many who would be uncomfortable supporting a candidate who would have promoted Danny and those who would be uncomfortable with candidates who would not have promoted. That makes those decisions a bad litmus test given that if used as oppose rationales, any opinion will probably generate enough opposition to sink an RfB. WjBscribe 13:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support - Good answers,Great Editor..any doubts???,,--Cometstyles 15:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support ugen64 00:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  32. I say support'Shindo9Hikaru' 01:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support per last time. — Deckiller 01:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support absolutely. I think Nihonjoe would do very well with the job, and I think he would enjoy the responsibility -- Samir 02:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support, especially for the excellent answer to question 2. WP unquestionably needs more bureaucrats of this type if the good example of bureaucrat discussion and open evaluation at Danny's RFA is to be extended. I opposed Danny's RFA, but I found the method of closing to be excellent, and in the best interests of accurately finding concensus. AKAF 08:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support on the strength of the remarkably low quality and relevance of the opposes - David Gerard 09:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    Amen to that. — Deckiller 14:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    Amen to the fact that (as usual) David is under the impression that WP:CIVILITY does not apply to him? A Traintalk 16:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    Amen to policy citing abuse. Plus, how is that a question? John Reaves (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    I would quibble with the characterization of David's comment, but you're quite right that my opinion of it has no place in NihonJoe's RfB. My apologies. A Traintalk 20:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support per David Gerard (although I'd prefer a little more input into RfA discussion, instead of lurking). Good luck! Majorly (hot!) 10:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support just like last time.--Húsönd 13:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support - No big deal. // Sean William 13:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support. Excellent track record and answers to questions. A Traintalk 16:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  41. Good candidate. John Reaves (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  42. Strong support per all the othe supports. Acalamari 18:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support. Nihonjoe is dedicated, level-headed, and entirely deserving of bureaucratship. He has given every indication that he will only improve Wikipedia with 'crat access. We can always use more dedicated bureaucrats. ♠PMC♠ 20:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support I have no reason to oppose this candidate. Darthgriz98 20:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support: All of the timing issues have seemed to have resolved themselves.  ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 01:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support Answers to my question about current RFA reform efforts seem reasonable enough. RxS 02:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support Per his sensible answers to the questions. EdJohnston 04:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support. Well-reasoned answers, good perspective on the issues. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support Nihonjoe is generally an excellent candidate. I think Oleg's critique of A2 and A7 below is fair, but it doesn't kill the candidacy for me. If anything, we probably need more discussion about that issue.--Chaser - T 09:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support per my support last time, and in particular, because of the responses to question 8 this time. The role of the bureaucrats is to be determined by the community, and I trust Nihonjoe to fulfill the role according to the wishes of the community and in a professional manner. All of my dealings with him have shown me that he has the "independence of thought, knowledgeability and integrity" requested below, and the ability to handle tough situations. Dekimasuよ! 14:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support per answers to the questions.--Dakota 16:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support The user is correct...their record DOES speak for itself. Jmlk17 00:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  53. I found this a difficult question, but after due consideration I am going to vote Support. Obviously the candidate's record is brilliant - that's not in question - but the most important consideration in an RfB is the candidate's policy on RfA. For the record, I personally believe that RfA should be a straightforward vote with a 75% threshold, and that the bureaucrats' discretionary authority should be strictly limited to excluding clear bad-faith !votes. Although this candidate does not fully agree with my view, and I disagree with his support for promoting Danny (who had only 66% support), I do think that he is less likely to damage the RfA process than some of the recent bureaucrat candidates. He also hasn't expressed support for any of the new RfA formats which have been introduced recently, all of which I strongly oppose, and he has very clearly stated that promotions ought to be based on community consensus, which is the most important thing. All in all, I think he would make a good bureaucrat. Walton Vivat Regina! 08:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support. the wub "?!" 11:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support --Herby talk thyme 11:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support. I feel the concern I has was adequately answered, than Nihonjoe will perform his duties in a responsible manner, and that the bureaucrat ranks could do with some fresh blood. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  57. It would be good to get some new bureaucrats, and Nihonjoe is a decent candidate. Frankly, I don't care about Nihonjoe's view on the finer points on when to promote somebody to adminship, because that's causing all RfBs to fail which is a dangerous situation. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose: Two reasons; One: The number of times the candidate has contributed to WT:RFA in the last two months (minus two copyedits) can be counted on two hands. In total, three hands. The involvement, what there is of it, centered around esoteric renaming proposals of "promotion" [1][2], and concerns regarding whether the tally should be shown or not. In the former case, there's no meat to judge the candidate. The latter case leads to my second reason for opposing. Two: This candidate seems to feel that a nomination going well would not deserve more scrutiny [3]. This is alarming to me. A bureaucrat should not simply flip the switch if there's >80% support. Bureaucrats are charged with reviewing each and every RfA that goes to term for a number of reasons, not least of which is determining consensus...which has nothing to do with the vote tallies. I do not feel comfortable that this candidate would make a good bureaucrat given this lack of understanding on his part. Combine this with the answer to question 6 above, where he feels the bot is important and it leaves me with a severe lack of faith that this candidate could or would evaluate RfAs for consensus rather than numbers. The bot is utterly meaningless, except for perhaps a minor role in alerting when an RfA is past term. In sum: The near total lack of participation in WT:RFA and the misunderstanding of how an RfA should be evaluated leaves me incapable of supporting this candidate. --Durin 17:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    I don't really have anything to say regarding the first reason other than that I've been following the discussions, but do not always have an opinion to express on them. That accounts for the lack of active commenting at WT:RFA. As for reason two, I think you are misinterpreting my comments. I did not say that because a nomination is going well for the candidate that it does not deserve to be fully considered and scrutinized. To clarify, what I meant by my comments there was that if the vote/!vote tally showed a significant number of oppose (or neutral) votes, that a b'crat would know just based on the tally alone that closer attention needed to be paid as there were obviously a number of individuals who had concerns regarding the the candidate. I think most anyone would agree that if there are very few or now opposes or neutrals, that very few or no people have concerns regarding the candidate (or if they do, they don't care to participate). I have never said that vote tallies should be the only method, or even a significant method, of determining consensus. They are simply another tool. Period. I see nothing wrong with having and using multiple tools when reviewing an RfA to determine what the general consensus is regarding it, and I'm sorry that you are reading more into my comments than is really there. Hopefully my explanation has clarified my stance on this.
    As for me feeling "the bot is important," again, you are reading far more into my comment than is actually there. The chart on WP:BN is simply another tool that allows a quick glance at the current RfAs to see how things are going and when they are due to be finally evaluated. It's just another tool, and my comment was only pointing out that something will need to be adjusted if we change the formatting of future RfAs to match the one used on the Moralis RfA if that stats box is to continue being a useful tool. If all of the listings were "Parse failed", the tool would cease to be useful for anything other than links to the RfAs, and that can be had by just going to WP:RFA. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you for the further explanation. However, it just confirms my opinion that you put weight in the chart at WP:BN. The chart is meaningless. It has nothing to do with consensus, and it is not a tool at all, even a marginally useful one, for determining how an RfA is going. RfA is about consensus. It is not something that can be evaluated, helpfully, by a bot. The ability of bureaucrats to analyze or close an RfA is completely unaffected by this bot. I stand by my comments. --Durin 23:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    Let me try again: I do not put any weight in the chart. None. I agree the chart in itself is meaningless. I agree that it has nothing to do with consensus. I agree that RfA is all about consensus, and I have not said anything here to the contrary. I have never said that an RfA should be evaluated by a bot, or that a bot could do an effective and fair job of it. The only thing I said was that the chart was useful as a quick reference, like the sports scores page in a newspaper (for lack of a better example). The sports scores page doesn't give you anything other than numbers and perhaps when a game was played. The chart on WP:BN does not give you anything other than numbers and the close date. The sports score page is not useful for evaluating exactly what happened in the game, what problems there were, or anything else specific. In the same vein, the chart on WP:BN does not detail any concerns raised, how the candidate handled them, or the overall feel of the RfA. I 100% agree that the outcome of an RfA must be decided by reviewing all the statements and comments made on the RfA (and the talk page, if it's used for anything other than an edit count), and consensus must be determined from that. We completely agree on this.
    Please note that I'm not trying to argue with you, but rather help you see that we are on the same page here. I respect your opinion and you in general, so I'm finding it frustrating that I can't seem to make myself clearly understood here. I think the only difference here is a matter of semantics, where my saying the chart is useful is somehow turned into the interpretation that I think the the chart is consensus. Nothing could be further from the truth. Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me. I hope I've been more clear this time. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    Addendum this edit where you say "I don't think grandstanding in your RfA is the proper forum for seeking change in a particular process" seems very much at odds with your answer to question 6 above. --Durin 17:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    I don't see how my comment regarding the bot needing to be fixed can be interpreted as grandstanding. It was a comment and nothing more. In contrast, Earle Martin chose to refuse to answer questions that have been expected to be answered by all RfA candidates for quite a long time now. While I respect his decision to do so, which is why I was neutral in that case. There's no valid comparison between my brief comment and the stance seen in Earle Martin's 2nd RfA. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    A two part question to Durin: I've read every single RfA that has come about in the past 8 months. I have read all comments, and I have followed each to conclusion. I only have a couple edits ever to the RfA talk page. So I would not make a proper bureaucrat if that is your criterion? I understand that you have no diffs to base what my opinions would be on, but could you not assume good faith that the nominee might know what to do without onwiki links? Hypotheticals, should I be Nihonjoe. Teke 05:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. This vote is unfair to some extent because I am not opposing on the basis of whether Nihonjoe is wise enough to be a bureaucrat, am sure he is, based on his thoughtful and yet honest answer to question 7 I posed. I oppose because I very firmly believe that, regardless of the particular RfA procedure used, all candidates must be equal when it comes to promotion. This is (as mentioned in that question) a cheap shot at Danny's RfA, yet the actual issue runs deeper than that. One should not fail some candidates who have 73% of support yet pass candidates who have 68%. Yes, some oppose votes can be sockpuppets, some's reasoning can be irrelevant, but even after that is factored out one is left with a very substantial opposition, much larger percentagewise and numberwise than at RfA's which usually pass. To summarize, while Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is community driven, and people's opionions matter. And the process should be fair, whatever that process is. So I can't support a candidate who stated he would have promoted in Danny's RfA. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    Ah, but Oleg, consensus isn't determined by statistics, something I'm certain you know so I'd like a bit of a clarification there. Instances are possible where those sorts of promotions or declinations occur by the sheer nature of statistics. And those rare instances that cause controversy have been rooted in prior controversy. Teke 05:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Decline I think the correct response to Oleg's question should have been that all RfAs deserve/require that kind of scrutiny, not just that special case. Lemme be frank in what I really want to see in an RfB - a strong indication of independence of thought, knowledgeability and integrity. Somehow, this nomination seems just to be casual and conventional. I'm not saying you need to imitate Mackensen, but you have to bring your own flavor to the cake - that is what really contributes in terms of having the presence and participation of another b'crat. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 22:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    The true substance of the candidate matters more than the bling-bling on any RfB nomination. - Mailer Diablo 10:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    While the purpose of an RfB is to bring out as much of the "true substance" for others to judge from. His answers, the reasons for wanting to do the job, his approach on policy, are not convincing/compelling enough for me, at least. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 10:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I don't see Nihonjoe on RFAs that often (especially on RFA talk pages as per Durin). The standards for bureaucrats is extremely high, and as Rama's arrow mentioned above, this nomination is seemingly done rather casually, and in my opinion, in the style of a regular RFA. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 05:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. I will oppose without hesitation any candidate for bureaucrat who would have promoted Danny. More than 100 editors opposed his promotion. That is not a "consensus" by any definition, not even by the twisted one some use here. Grace Note 00:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per Grace Note. Bramlet Abercrombie 11:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Not dissimilar to previous RfBs, this is a user I hold in very high esteem, but I must oppose per my oft repeated standards. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per Gracenote. --JJay 17:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose I expect an absolute minimum of one year of service as an admin prior to further promotions.--MONGO 10:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Moved to neutral--MONGO 19:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Q2 ~ trialsanderrors 19:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    Could you expand on what aspect(s) of the response to Q2 you base your opposition in? GRBerry 21:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    Per Sjakkalle below. ~ trialsanderrors 19:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks. I think Sjakkalle is factually correct, but I'd rather have a discussion in the open than a private decision as was done in the Carnildo and Ryulong cases, so I at least don't find that persuasive. GRBerry 20:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not trying to persuade anyone, but if admins and 'crats are able to implement community consensus rather than their own leanings they don't need to hide behind committee decision making. ~ trialsanderrors 21:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    I wonder if you might reconsider an oppose based on Q2 in light of Q8. Dekimasuよ! 14:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. The candidate's statements and answers to questions indicate that he, if elected, would count votes. This is not acceptable to me, and I therefore must oppose this candidate's nomination. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    I'm curious exactly which of my comments give that impression. If you read all of my comments above, you'll see that I very clearly (on more than one occasion) state that I will not count votes, but will follow consensus. To quote one of my comments, "I 100% agree that the outcome of an RfA must be decided by reviewing all the statements and comments made on the RfA (and the talk page, if it's used for anything other than an edit count), and consensus must be determined from that." RfA is all about consensus, and any comments here trying to make it look like I think anything different are 100% false. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    Indeed, I do see you trying to hedge your position, leading me to conclude that you will both count votes and "followconsensus". In particular, your comments about having the vote tallies on individual voting subpages, and about recoding the bot to properly tally candidacies like Moralis' are especially disquieting to me. I am categorically opposed to any form or reliance on vote counting; I expect bureaucrats to read every discussion fully and completely and decide to promote or not promote based on the merits of the candidate as revealed by the discussion. From your comments above I am not even remotely convinced that you'll do that. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you for expressing your opinion. However, I'm still confused as to why you are saying I won't follow consensus. I've stated very clearly above that I will not count votes, I do not think votes have anything to do with consensus, and that RfA is all about consensus. Having vote tallies is merely a convenience, but does not have anything to do with the final decision (which is based on consensus). I don't have a problem with you !voting oppose as long as you are not misrepresenting my positions on various topics. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    You state in your response to the first question that you understand the current standards to be based primarily on counting votes (specifically, the 75% support rule). It's unclear why your view of promotion standards is primarily grounded in vote-counting if you believe that "votes have [nothing] to do with consensus. I think Kelly's remarks are very reasonably grounded in your own comments, and your own remarks appear to be somewhat contradictory. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    Please go read the header information on the WP:RFA page. Under "Decision process", it clearly states, "Generally the line between successful and unsuccessful candidacies lies at 75% support, though a few have failed with more support or succeeded with less support." (emphasis is mine) That's what I'm talking about, but please note the second half of that quote: "...though a few have failed with more support or succeeded with less support." This is the general discretionary power that's given to bureaucrats under currently accepted policy and procedures. B'crats must determine, based on the comments and discussions in an RfA/B whether consensus really has been reached. Regardless of the actual percentage of the votes, the final decision is made based on the b'crats determining the consensus based on an evaluation of the actual discussion. I think of the percentage (or vote count/tally) as more of a general indicator of the likelihood of an outcome (an RfA with 90% of the opinons being in support of promotion is far more likely to succeed than one with with only 70% of the opinions being in support). However, just to make it perfectly clear, the decision is not made based on the vote count. It is made by consensus. Period. Hopefully that's clear enough. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    I am having difficulty with your answers because you seem to think that the current practice (which generates the observed 75% result) is consistent with a model where decisions are made by evaluating the discussion. It seems pretty obvious to me, however, that current practice by the bureaucrats active at RfA is to close discussions almost exclusively on the vote count (excluding, perhaps, candidates seeking re-adminship). I don't believe you can endorse the current practice and simultaneously claim to be committed to consensus; a clear answer to the question, I think, would necessitate choosing one or the other. In any case, thank you for your responses. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Durin's concerns trouble me as well, and those alone would probably be enough cause to oppose, but I have other reasons as well. It has long been convention for a bureaucrat to self-nominate and give a long statement expressing his or her views on adminship. Mine was longer than most, but at the very least you're expected to set out the rationale under which you'd promote and why the community should trust you with the task. I do not know why this candidate has been nominated by Mailer diablo intstead of nominating himself, and as I am on the record as not trusting Mailer diablo himself to be a bureaucrat, I must count this against the candidate. I also note the specific addition of "Please keep criticism constructive and polite." at the top heading of the unused discussion area. This isn't part of a standard RfB but was deliberately added, apparently by Mailer diablo in the nomination. Why was this done, and why was it targeted on "criticism" instead of "discussion" or "comments?" Mackensen (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    That was actually in the RfB template until recently. I added it back in January based on a consensus here. I'm adding it back right now.--Chaser - T 16:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    I agree that it has been a convention, but there is nothing anywhere that says one editor can't nominate another. I was quite surprised when Mailer diablo approached me about it. As for explanations, I believe I have given more than enough explanation here for anyone to determine the rationale under which I would promote, and why I should be trusted with the task. As for your personal feelings about Mailer diablo, I think I should be considered on my own merits, without your personal feelings about someone else clouding the issue. I've been very open and very honest in all my comments and responses here, and you should be able to make your decision based on that. Thank you for taking the time to do so. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    I'm afraid you misunderstand the thrust of my comments. First of all, I don't agree with your views on adminship, nor with your approach to becoming a bureaucrat. My comments on Mailer nominating you, and my preference for there being a full statement, should be seen in that light. My feelings about Mailer are not personal as you imply (I have no problem with him as a person), but are centered directly on the fact that I do not agree with his views on adminship and accordingly opposed him strongly at RfB last October. All these things taken into consideration I simply cannot support this request. Mackensen (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. There's too many good arguments made in opposition by people I respect for me to offer support, sorry. Hiding Talk 23:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. I'd oppose any candidate who is cuturally insensitive enough to have a Japanese signature on the English Wikipedia. Doesn't the candidate understand that the vast majority of users of this Wikipedia can't read their signature and therefore will be horribly confused by it? I know this isn't specificically related to the duties of a Bureaucrat, but in my opinion it shows difficiencies in the candidate's general sense of judgement. I therefore can't support. Dorange 23:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sorry you find it "culturally insensitive." I find it quite the opposite, more of a "culturally broadening" thing. Feel free to click on the superscript ? right before the superscript "Talk to Nihonjoe" to learn how to enable UTF-8 fonts on your system. All modern operating systems and browsers support the UTF characters, and (in most cases) they are easily enabled. Thanks for expressing your opinion, even if in opposition. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    Not that I agree with the "culturally insensitive" accusation at all but I think he may not be able to read kanji even though he can see it. Haukur 00:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    I agree that may be the case. I will note, however, that there are thousands of other editors on this wiki who employ similar signatures (in whatever language or set of characters they choose to employ). Hovering on the link or clicking on it is sufficient to determine who it's for (or even reading the very clear English words to the right of the kanji). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah, absolutely - I'm with you on this. Haukur 01:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Sorry, no. Per Durin's second reason, principally.--Docg 10:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


Neutral

  1. Isn't this kind of... soon since the last attempt? – Chacor 16:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    It is less than the arbitrary three months that you're asked to wait between RfAs, yes. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 16:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    I note that Redux's successful RfB was less than two months after his second failed RfB. WjBscribe 13:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Oppose. The answer to question one is not at all what I want to hear from a bureaucrat. I completely disagree that it's better to have the vote count at the top of the page because not having it "makes determining this a little harder." I'm worried that a candidate would actually consider the top vote count to be useful enough that he mentions it in his RfB. I would also preferred if he had waited a bit longer since his last RfB (less than 3 months ago) and not in the wake of several failed RfBs. ChazBeckett 16:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    I have posted a clarification as I believe you do not understand what I meant. Hopefully the additional information will make it more clear. Thanks. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    Additionally, I don't agree with the answer to question 6, where he implies that an RfA format should be modified to allow easier parsing by a bot. It doesn't matter whether a bot can parse an RfA or not. Modify the format if it helps the discussion, but not so some chart can be updated by a bot. ChazBeckett 16:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    I believe you misunderstand my comments. I don't want the RfA format changed so a bot can more easily parse it, though I can see how my comment might imply that. I was just pointing out that the new format is not being understood by the bot, so the chart on WP:BN wasn't updating properly. I apologize for any confusion on that point. I have updated the comment to reflect this. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    I appreciate the clarifications, though I still mostly disagree the answer to #1. However, I'm moving to neutral as I won't be around for a few days and I'd prefer to see more info. Thanks, ChazBeckett 16:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. I do believe a candidate for crat should be an admin for a full year, and would also like to see a lot more participation in Rfa discussions, but I am not convinced this nominee will make a bad crat, so I have switched from oppose to neutral.--MONGO 19:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    I don't think the candidate would make a bad bureaucrat, he is a good admin and his answers are sincere. My concern is over question 2, where he writes "...the discussion and decision-making were there in the open for anyone to see so that no valid accusations of a real COI could be made as the decision was very clearly discussed and decided there." This disturbs me a bit, even if the conflict of interest is out in the open and transparent, the conflict of interest is still there. Openness is good, but it does not mean that all concerns simply go away. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    My main point with that discussion was that I liked how they held an open discussion regarding their views. I agree that Dan shouldn't have been the one to close the RfA as the apparent conflict of interest was there for anyone to see. However, I can also see and understand the opinion of the b'crats who participated there, that since they discussed everything there and made a decision there, it didn't really make a difference who clicked the link or pressed the button (not sure which it is). That's doesn't mean I agree with Dan doing the promotion himself, because I don't agree with that action. I think someone else should have done it instead. And while some people may disagree with the outcome, the process was completely open to viewing by any interested party, and the b'crats involved expressed their reasons for coming to their decision. I understand that doesn't make all concerns go away. Perhaps they should have discussed it for longer to be sure they addressed any concerns raised. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Sorry, no. Per Durin's second reason, principally.--Docg 10:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


Comment

  1. Your signature appears to be question marks. I understand that is Japanese characters which don't express in my browser. I can't tell what it says.--Dakota 17:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    You can learn how to make them appear correctly by clicking on the superscript ? right before the superscript "Talk to Nihonjoe". All modern operating systems and browsers support the UTF characters, and (in most cases) they are easily enabled. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
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.