Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 3

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

Nihonjoe[edit]

Final (54/24/14); closed 22:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC) as no consensus to promote. -- Avi (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Nihonjoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – I've been an active editor of Wikipedia since September 2005. Since May 2006, I've been an active admin here and participated in a wide range of admin activities (Xfd, CSD, DRV, the occasional AIV, etc.), as well as participating in various policy and guideline discussions which caught my eye, and participating in RfA and RfB discussions (though more often than not, I don't always weigh in on all discussions even though I do follow them quite regularly). I also follow the discussions on WT:RFA regularly even though I only rarely offer an opinion there. I have also helped with OTRS issues, regularly answering questions sent in via email, as well as beginning to help with permissions messages (I wanted to make sure I knew what the process was before handling any of them).

I've made edits on too many language Wikipedias to count (I have accounts on over 200 of them), and I'm in the middle of a major contribution to expanding Japanese coverage on Wikisource (it's a lot of work transcribing a book!). I've also made a decent number of contributions to Commons, including moving many properly licensed images from the Japanese and English Wikipedias to Commons so they can be used by all WMF projects with access to Commons.

I was last here at RfB over two years ago. During that time, I have greatly expanded my knowledge of policies and guidelines, and helped (as noted above) in discussing potential and actual changes to them. I have a solid understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and a solid understanding of what it takes to be a good admin. I believe I would be a solid bureaucrat as well, and humbly offer my services as such. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional 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. The criteria to promote are for the bureaucrat to review all the comments and information within each discussion and then determine the consensus based on that discussion. While the general consensus is that candidates with 80% or more support will generally pass an RfA, this is not always the case. It's very important to make sure the discussion is thoroughly reviewed in order to determine the consensus and weigh all the arguments given in the discussion.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A. In such situations, it's important to review the discussion even more closely in order to make sure to gain a solid understanding of the consensus of those participating. In highly contentious nominations, this can sometimes be difficult and take some time, but it's important to make sure all arguments and concerns are understood so that correct determination of consensus can be made. Along the way, it is important to make sure any decision is backed by solid information about why the decision was made so that any questions regarding the final outcome can be properly and thoroughly addressed. When people raise specific issues regarding a particular outcome, it's important to treat their concerns with respect and answer them in a direct manner, without any sidestepping of the issues.

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. As stated above, I have several years of experience applying those policies and guidelines, and I think I have applied them with fairness during that time. I have participated in numerous talk page discussions across all namespaces (some more than others), and I try to work toward amicable and reasonable outcomes. While I certainly don't agree on everything with everyone I've worked with (I would be concerned if I did), I try to work through any disagreements and come to some sort of conclusion which is acceptable to everyone involved. This requires give-and-take on the part of everyone involved, but I don't think that's a bad thing. I am certainly not perfect, but I apologize when I'm clearly wrong and I try to be friendly and work with others in a generally positive way. We're all here to build an encyclopedia, and that's my main goal here: to help make Wikipedia the largest and best encyclopedia on the planet.

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 to the first, and yes to the second unless the issue being discussed would unnecessarily invade the privacy of the individual concerned. These cases would likely be extremely rare, though.

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, and I regularly visit all of them. As stated above, I tend to lurk more than participate in the discussions on the associated talk pages unless I have strong opinions one way or the other. I think, for a bureaucrat, it's more important to closely observe such discussions than it is to constantly participate in them (though I have no problem with those who do constantly participate).

6. Do you pledge never to promote a person with whom you are affiliated?

A. Yes, as that would be a conflict of interest.

Optional question from Dank

7. You mentioned "candidates with 80% or more support will generally pass an RfA, this is not always the case." Are there any RFAs that got 80% or more where you would have recommended "no consensus"?

A: I don't know that I have any specific discussion in mind. The "80%" is just a general observation which is generally true.

Optional question from Aitias

8. Please explain how you would have closed the following discussions:

A: Well, seeing as I !voted in some of them, I'll have to defer to the decision made by the closing 'crat on these as my opinion is very clearly in the discussion itself: FlyingToaster 2, Ryulong, Everyking 5.

For the Orlady discussion, I think this was very close, and I think the closure could have gone either way and been valid. I probably would have closed it as no consensus, but I respect Anonymous Dissident's closure as valid.

For the Smith609 discussion, this one (again) was very close and the closure could have gone either way. In this case, I would have closed it as successful for the reasons expressed by bibliomaniac15.

For the Rootology discussion, this one (again—you seem to have picked a lot of them like this) was very close. In this case, it was closed with reasoning that we need to forgive editors who have shown they are turning over a new leaf. While I agree with this idea, I also find many of the comments voicing concern over how soon it was after he was unbanned to be compelling and I likely would have closed it as unsuccessful due to how close it was, how serious the raised concerns were, and how recently he was unbanned.

For lustiger seth, this one is difficult. He basically needed the tools for development-type reasons (working with the WP:SBL), If it weren't for the admin status on dewiki and meta, I would have closed it as unsuccessful without any question at all. However, as he has been working on the same issue on other wikis, and has been trusted with the admin bit on both meta and dewiki, I agree with the reasoning given by Deskana in closing the discussion as successful.

I agree with the closing comments from WJBscribe on the Cirt discussion, and I would have closed the discussion in the same manner.

I would have closed the Zedla discussion as no concensus, and I'm concerned at the lack of any closing comments at all on this discussion. Due to the extremely low participation in the discussion (55 total participants who expressed opinions), I don't think there were enough people expressing support for the nomination to make a valid successful closure decision.

The Number 57 discussion was a difficult one. While some of the concerns raised by those opposed to the nomination, there was clear evidence of canvassing against the nominee (whether those doing the canvassing thought it was canvassing or not). I think this one could have gone either way, and while I likely would have closed it as no consensus, I can understand how it could also be closed as successful. No closing comments on this one concerned me as I think that any potentially controversial closure should have a clear explanation of why the final decision was made, as well as the thought process behind the decision.

I would have likely closed as unsuccessful the LessHeard vanU discussion as I do not believe a sufficient support was shown to justify a successful closure. This discussion was very close, however, so I do not fault the successful closure.

I remember the Carnildo discussion quite well. I would have closed it as unsuccessful as there was very clearly no consensus for a successful closure despite the various attempts at reasoning offered by Taxman and others. While bureaucrats are given some leeway when making decisions which are close calls (such as most of the ones listed here in this question), I do not believe this closure fell anywhere near the leeway allowed for such closures.

I would make no changes to the unsuccessful close of the Aitias 2 discussion as I don't believe adequate support was shown to support a successful outcome. The concerns raised in opposition were valid and carried a lot of weight in this discussion.

The Avraham 2 was close, as noted in the Bureaucrat discussion (which I think was a very good idea in this case). If I had been participating in that discussion, I would have closed it as unsuccessful as well. I think the reasoning offered in the linked discussion is very well thought out and a valid interpretation of consensus.

I agree with the closure of the Ral315 discussion. While bureaucrats have some discretion interpreting "close" discussions, I don't believe this discussion falls within that "gray area". I don't believe sufficient support was shown for a successful close.

On the Quadell discussion, I don't believe sufficient support was shown. While I believe many of the oppose opinions were somewhat weak, I think this was offset by the number of support opinions which offered no explanation for the opinion. Therefore, I don't believe sufficient support was shown for a successful close.

I agree with the reasoned discussion on the closure of the Riana discussion. The oppose opinions expressed were very clear and valid (as opposed to being frivolous), so they carried a lot of weight in the final decision. I believe the the issues raised in opposition were significant enough to support the unsuccessful close of this very close discussion.

The Andrevan3 discussion was a close one, and could have been closed either way. I would have held a discussion with other bureaucrats (such as those used in some of the other discussions mentioned here) in this case in order to determine proper consensus. I think this one was close enough to warrant such a discussion.

That was a lot to go through, and I hope I've answered the questions sufficiently. It's difficult being asked to second guess previous decisions made, especially on discussions which were quite close and could have gone either way. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Ϣere SpielChequers

9. I noticed that nine of the RFA !votes you've cast recently were on the 7th of May, in one case only two minutes apart. How much research would you expect an RFA !voter to do on a candidate before participating in an RFA?

A. I would expect someone to review the comments already posted in the RfX, as well as review the contributions and interactions of the candidate. The timeframes you mention are a little misleading as I tend to look through everyone and then post comments. I generally take notes while I'm looking through someone's contributions, so it's fairly quick and easy to refer to the notes and express my opinions on several in quick succession. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Keepscases

10. Do you believe that Breaststroke is an appropriate Wikipedia user name? Why or why not?

A: As it's the name of a particular type of swimming movement, I don't see a problem. I can see why some people might read possible offensiveness into it, but unless a name very clearly violates WP:UN, I don't see a problem with it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Ϣere SpielChequers

11. Day 1 of an RFA an editor opposes with a particular rationale, and a number of other editors oppose per that editor. On day two that editor shifts to support, but five days later at the end of the RFA there are still 12 opposes per from editors who don't appear to have revisited the discussion since the editor they are opposing per changed position. What weight do you ascribe to those !votes and in which direction do you count them (in this hypothetical example there are 88 other !votes, 69 supports and 19 opposes)

A: It would depend on what the original reason for opposing was, I think. If the original reason for opposing was due to some misunderstanding which was cleared up, then I think the "per so-and-so" opposes would necessarily carry less weight due to no longer having a valid basis for the oppose. If, on the other hand, the original reason on which they based their opinion was a legitimate concern which was not or could not be adequately addressed and resolved—and therefore could still be a factor in the opinions expressed by others—I think they would still carry the weight. Without a specific example, though, it's difficult to make a determination. In this case, as in any other which appears on the surface to be close to successful, I think it would definitely warrant much more careful consideration of all of the arguments than a discussion which was obviously and overwhelmingly one way or the other. Then, once a decision was made, I would include a well-reasoned statement explaining the thought process that led to the decision. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gavin Collins

12. Why do you archive so many discussions on talk pages of topics which are the subject of edtioral disputes? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: Gavin, that's a disingenuous question and you know it. I archive old discussions which haven't been touched on for months. Just because you think a discussion which has had no posts for over three months (or seven months) is still active doesn't mean everyone is going to see it that way. Now, if you have a real question that has something to do with bureaucratship, feel free to add it here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Pmlinediter

13. In an RfA, say 70 users Supported, 50 Opposed and 5 were Neutral. However, most of the opposes are very weak, such as "He mistakenly tagged an article with A7 a year ago" or "This user's last RfA was only 3/4 months ago" and most others are "Per User:____". How would you close such an RfA?

A: RfAs are not about percentages, so I'd have to evaluate the discussion based on the actual discussion. If you want to see some real examples, please review the big list above ("Optional question from Aitias"). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Pmlinediter

14. An RfA ended with 60% support and 40% opposes. However, the main issue raised was by an user who was:-a) a sock puppeteer (discovered after the RfA was closed) or b) an account created few minutes before the RfA was started and most other opposes are per him. What would do in such a situation. (I'll prefer an answer individually to both parts).

A: RfAs are not about percentages, so I'd have to evaluate the discussion based on the actual discussion. If it was shown that one or more of the participants was a sock, then that would be taken into account appropriately. The same applies to a possible SPA. If you want to see some real examples of what I'd do, please review the big list above ("Optional question from Aitias"). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Ax

15. What are you willing to go through to have this position, bureaucrat?

A: The normal process, just like any other potential bureaucrat. If there is more to your question than that, please clarify. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 10:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This answer is okay. Awaiting your answer to my other question.

Question from Ax

16. Why should I vote for an Oppose?

A: I'm sorry, but I do not understand your question. Please clarify. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 10:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I opposed your bureaucratship? What do you think Wikipedia will be missing?

Thank you for the clarification. I think Wikipedia would be missing out on someone who has an excellent grasp on what bureaucrats do, as well as a fair-minded bureaucrat. I think my answers above, especially the ones to Aitias' questions, show that I understand the applicable policies and procedures, and have a good handle on how they should be applied. The main points of a good bureaucrat are whether they understand how to determine consensus (which I have shown that I do) and whether they have a good grasp on the applicable policies, guidelines, and procedures (which I do). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Links for Nihonjoe: Nihonjoe (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Edit summary usage for Nihonjoe can be found here.
Promote Nihonjoe (bureaucrats only)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion[edit]

Editing/admin stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

Support Has the needed experience. -down load ׀ sign! 23:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. You are an extremely experienced editor and administrator which leads me to support. The only worry I have is your lack of actual participation at WT:RFA and on RfAs themselves. I will assume good faith and believe that you are lurking, though I hope you will take a more active role at RfA in the future. Malinaccier (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - trustworthy admin. PhilKnight (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Malinaccier. LITTLE MOUNTAIN 5 23:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly: my interactions with Nihonjoe have always been positive, and I have no problem with him being a bureaucrat. Also due to what I said here. Acalamari 23:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Switched from neutral. Sure; seems trustworthy upon further evaluation. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as candidate has never been blocked and as in the literally dozens of AfDs the candidate closed in which I commented, only 4 closes were incorrect, so judgment overall is sound and thus would probably trust to close other consensus reaching discussions such as RfAs. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per A Nobody and Malinaccier. tempodivalse [☎] 00:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I have several reasons to believe that this editor is suited for the bureaucrat tools. 1) Long-time editor and admin who has a proven track record of thoughtfulness and fairness; 2) Active participation in XfD indicates that Joe (if it's ok to call him that) has solid experience in determining consensus; 3) Answers to the questions indicate that Joe has a decent understanding of the role of a 'crat and will not promote a candidate without thoroughly thinking things over; 4) Not so much a reason to support in itself, but participation at WT:RFA is not, in my honest opinion, a good criterion to oppose an RfB over. Very few things are ever accomplished on that page — the discussions revolve around generally trivial issues that mean very little in the scheme of things. I lurk there too, and I also rarely participate in discussions unless they are interesting enough to me. But back to the point, Nihonjoe is no fool, and I'm pretty sure we can trust him not to break Wikipedia as a 'crat. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But there is a key difference. People know that you are a lurker because you participate on occassion. I lurk on ANI and sometimes get dragged into discussions I wasn't planning on joining. It happens. Nihonjoe's last post to WT:RFA was on June 1... 2007. That combined with the fact that prior to May, he had only partaken in two RfA's in the previous two years. He's done nothing to demonstrate his views on RfA/RfB or any of the other 'crat areas.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize it had been that long since he made an edit to the talk page. I'm a semi-active contributor to that page, commenting when I see something that catches my eye. I certainly trust Nihonjoe enough for the role, but then you do have a point — it's hard to really be able to assess somebody's understanding of a role when they have minimal experience in areas related to that role. It doesn't seem very likely that this RfB will pass considering the opposition, so it may be moot for me to change to neutral or oppose. I guess it should be considered more of a "symbolic support" for this editor in appreciation for all he's done to make Wikipedia a better place, otherwise a somewhat weaker support considering his lack of experience (didn't realize he lacked that much - I don't do really in-depth analysis's of candidates, because it would take too much time for me). Master&Expert (Talk) 23:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Joe appears to have an excellent track record as an editor and an admin. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not a controvercial admin as far as I know. Also an excellent track record. --Kaaveh (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, passes the clue test. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not too convinced, but have no big reservations. Support per answer to Aitas' question. Pmlinediter ^Talk 08:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Changed from oppose) Activity in the bureaucrat-related areas is entirely irrelevant, if one has the only quality that's relevant for a bureaucrat — good judgement. Given Nihonjoe's answer to my question (Q8), I have no doubt at all that Nihonjoe possesses this quality. Thus, I'm happy to support. — Aitias // discussion 12:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely. Nihonjoe has a clue, and as evidenced by his answers appreciates and employs nuance and critical thinking. Not being a WT:RFA groupie is also a strong plus, given that 90% of the conversation there is either about DougsTech, spillover from IRC/WR, or some combination of the two. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Response to Aitias' question demonstrates plenty of clue. Candidate does not need to be part of the bi-monthly "NOT ENOUGH CANDIDATES HOW DO WE MAKE MORE CANDIDATES HERE ARE MY IN-DEPTH IDEAS OH GOD WAIT NOW TOO MANY CANDIDATES HELP" screeching freak-outs to understand the underlying principles of consensus. In fact, I propose that his distance from the WT:RFA crowd is in fact a good thing - there is such a thing as caring too much, and getting sucked into various idea cliques is very counter-productive to the Bureaucratics' role as neutral third party observers, rather than biased second party participants. Most of the really awful, questionable, or "merely" controversial Bureaucratic decisions seem to have a common undercurrent of cliquery - "this is close, but you're my buddy, so as long as there's some support, I can brush aside the criticisms without really personally addressing them" reduces "gauging consensus" to mere "counting heads". I'm surprised so many of the opposes here seem to be arguing the opposite. Badger Drink (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shouldn't be a problem.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 22:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Largely per Badger Drink. wt:rfa is a tedious fairground ride where the same dreary fads and revelations come round every couple of days or so. Only the neurotic or the narcissist would resolve to leave his stamp in every discussion there. In the absence of any substantive reason to distrust him, Nihonjoe looks an excellent candidate for bureacratship. Flowerparty^☀ 23:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support All opposes as of this edit are only about what the nominee is currently involved in. He/she has no problems, and I don't see a reason to not support. Renaissancee (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure. — Jake Wartenberg 01:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Total trust in his ability to react calmly and fairly to drama. Total confidence that he won't cause drama himself. Long, consistent record of involvement in the project. While the opposers are discussing recent involvement in RfA, I have difficulty understanding why anyone would doubt Nihonjoe's understanding of what RfA entails or doubt that he could perform the job well. Dekimasuよ! 01:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support No issues, user has exhibited fair judgement. --Maverx (talk) 03:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think users hold bureaucrat candidates to ridiculously high standards. I disagree with most of the discussion below in the oppose section, also noting a significant amount of hypocrisy within a few of the opposition comments when reflecting the behavior and actions of the corresponding users. But that's all beside the point here. I've seen Nihonjoe around and trust his judgment. The user hasn't done anything that anybody has deemed unacceptable or in poor judgment but are just complaining about what Nihonjoe hasn't done. While this should definitely hold some weight in such a venue, I believe people are giving it too much weight. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I supported last time. It's been so long I don't remember. Yes, please. Keegan^talk 04:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, trustworthy admin, good answers to the questions and I think will be a good judge of consensus. Dreadstar † 04:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per M&E, Stifle, and Aitias. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you were here since 2005, I see no reason for opposing given the 3+ years of experience. –BuickCentury Driver 09:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support No issues here. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 14:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I originally had reservations about this request due to some of the issues pointed out below, specifically a lack of active participation in the areas where a bureaucrat is likely to be most important, ie. RFA and related pages. However, I find I am swayed by the argument that good judgement is, ultimately, the most important qualifier for the "position" and based on the answers above and a little additional research it looks to me like the candidate does indeed possess the required good judgement. One need not be a policymaker to be a solid enforcer of policy; one need not be an active participant in the discussions to be a good judge of their outcome. Shereth 15:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It shouldn't matter whether or not the candidate is active in the particular field in which he wants to work. As long as he has good judgment, he deserves to be promoted. The answers to the questions convince me Nihonjoe has good judgment in bureaucrat areas, so I see no reason to oppose. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 17:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've seen him around a lot, I wonder why others haven't. And in every case I've thought his contributions were good and rational. I don't see reason why a bureaucrat should need to have had significant participation in RfA. So basically: good editor/admin and I don't find the oppose arguments relevant. Hobit (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support has my full trust. Durova^Charge! 18:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fully qualified and admin actions have been outstanding.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support because I see good work and plenty of clue, and feel I can trust Nihonjoe's judgment, but I also support for the reasons Badger Drink mentioned. There was a recent query on the talk page regarding criteria for RFBs, and I almost added one of the qualities I look for in a b'crat: disinterest. Nihonjoe shows traits of DGAFism when it comes to RFA, and that is something I consider suitable for this very particular job. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Opposition is far from convincing. Perceived inactivity is a relative thing (inactive by what gold standard?), and I think Nihonjoe looks trustworthy. Let's assume good faith here. Steven Walling (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm impressed with this user. Pzrmd (talk) 06:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Am impressed by the editor's responses to the questions and particularly by his responses to the oppose votes. Well explained, forceful, and no pandering. Just what we need in a crat. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 18:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - I think that your answers to Aitias' question show that you know what you are doing, but it would probably be better if you had more edits in crat areas. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per answers to Question 8. t'shael ^mindmeld 00:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per not enough... Nevermind. Looking through the diffs and contribs, I find only positive contributions to Wikipedia. The candidate shows the desire to improve, protect, and defend our site. I think the answers to the questions are honest, forthright, and of quality content. I see no reason to oppose this. — Ched : ? 04:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see no problem with this admin. I think he is willing to learn and sort things out if he becomes a bureaucrat. ax (talk) 06:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support No problems here. This user has my trust. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 06:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see no reason to oppose. This admin has exhibited fair judgement.--Bukubku (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have looked through the opposes and neutrals and well, frankly, I find them quite unconvincing. This user has shown a desire to improve and learn from past mistakes and will probably make an excellent crat. Good Luck! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fair and trustworthy admin. Oda Mari (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support There seems to be this mantra that an admin must have a high enough drama mongering level before he or she can be considered for bureaucrat. Thankfully, this admin has no interest in such BS. I have full confidence in this candidate. Vodello (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – User is trustworthy, capable and will be an asset with the extra tools. American Eagle (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When are you guys going to get it? He could talk about RFA all the time for all I care, and still lack good judgment. But he doesn't he has excellent judgment, and is wise to stay clear of WT:RFA. I think Joe will make an extremely good and influential bureaucrat. ceranthor 12:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No reason to oppose, looks a great candidate. S D 5 13:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good to me. OtisJimmyOne 14:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I read and considered the oppose votes below, most of which appear to be variations of Majorly's rationale, and I respectfully don't agree with them. When Nihonjoe says that he has actively observed RfAs as a lurker, I believe him. About the allegations of bias by Caspian Blue, please consider the source of that accusation before putting any credence in it. If you want to know more about what I'm talking about, just leave a note on my talk page. Cla68 (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm not very convinced by the opposes. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 00:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support He has my trust for quite some time now. -- Ned Scott 04:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support «l| ?romethean ™|l» (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

You simply are not very active at all in the areas you wish to work - namely RFA, which is all that matters really (I don't care for clerking at CHU, or hanging out at bot requests - it's RFA that is the most contentious area). It's all very well watching them, and I can understand why you wouldn't want to take part, but I don't believe I've ever really seen you (at least recently) get involved, which shows a sign of interest. Sorry. And please don't just get active on RFA just for the sake of passing RFB next time, because that will be frowned upon by many. Either you're interested or you aren't, and you just don't seem to be. Majorly talk 22:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Majorly. Lurking is one thing, active participation is another. I am struggling to remember any valued input at WT:RFA and WP:RFA - and for a bureaucrat, that's just not a good sign. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 23:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most bureaucrats don't hang out at WT:RFA and comment on everything. The most important thing for a bureaucrat is to be aware of the discussions and any change in consensus on policy, guidelines, and procedures so that any actions are in accordance with current policies, guidelines, and procedures. As I said, I tend to lurk and only comment when I have a really strong opinion on a particular topic. Most of the time, others have already stated an opinion which matches my thoughts on an issue, and theirs is generally better worded than mine would have been, too. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As noted by Majorly, you don't seem to be active at RFA and related pages. If by your third request for the shinier tools, you still don't seem to have shown a consistent and well-grounded interest in RfA and its processes, this RfB only looks like hat collecting. Sorry, but I do not trust your judgment. ÷seresin 00:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
#~~Per the points explained by Majorly, Wisdom89 and Seresin above. Sorry. — Aitias // discussion 01:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)~~ Changing to support. — Aitias // discussion 12:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Also, please note that I might reconsider later on in case of an outstandingly good answer to my question. — Aitias // discussion 02:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if my answer is outstanding, but it sure took a while to review all those discussions. Thank you for the opportunity to review them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per this and this, you've never edited WT:Bots/Requests for approval or WP:CHU, and others have mentioned the RFA situation. I don't think you've made a case for what you'd be doing as a crat. - Dank (push to talk) 02:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I see no username blocks in the past 3 years, and no edits ever to WP:UAA. - Dank (push to talk) 12:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does blocking (of any sort) have to do with being a bureaucrat? I've done several hundred blocks in my time as an admin (see the stats on the talk page if you're interested). UAA has nothing to do with bureaucrats as any admin can block someone for breaking username policy. CHU is where bureaucrats would work, and I've not really made many edits there as the work is handled by bureaucrats and I've rarely seen it needing a ton of attention (meaning things seem to generally be under control there). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UAA has quite a bit to do with bureaucratship. 'Crats are expected to be intimately familiar with the username policy, so they can make accurate calls at CHU. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, but blocking has very little (if anything) to do with it. Unless the people mentioned at UAA are brought up at CHU, I don't think bureaucrats come into the picture (again, as any admin can block someone breaking the policy or direct them to CHU should they wish to change their username. Username policy is fairly straightforward, too (at least I see it that way). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The username policy is actually quite complex (I say that as someone with ~1000 edits to UAA and about 500 associated blocks). And indeed, blocks demonstrate sufficient knowledge in the area. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Username blocks and/or edits to WP:CHU or WP:UAA would demonstrate knowledge of WP:U, which takes quite a while to learn thoroughly. I'm a little concerned that you say above that you're ready to help out at CHU when you have no practical experience with anything username-related, and that you want me to trust you at CHU with no evidence. - Dank (push to talk) 04:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I expect a crat to be very well-known in the community and to firmly have the trust of the community. I don't have an opinion about Nihonjoe since I've never heard of him/her before, so from my point of view I don't know if either point is necessarily true. I have much higher expectations from a crat candidate than an admin candidate. I expect a crat's contributions have already told their story of why they should be a crat without having to do any research. Sorry. Royal broil 04:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we must not edit the same articles that much, or participate on similar pages. Given that there are over 2.9 million articles on WIkipedia, and over 16 million total pages across all namespaces, it's not unusual to run across other editors (even admins) who you haven't heard of. I suspect that will happen more and more often as the encyclopedia continues to grow. Feel free to review my contributions as I feel they do speak for themselves. Thank you for your comments. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors here are expected to research candidates for RfA who they're unfamiliar with. Is it really a valid reason to oppose an RfB without research if you aren't personally familiar with what the candidate has done? We're talking about someone who has been an admin for three years, has performed over 5000 administrator actions, and has over 50000 edits (including policy discussion and adding a great deal of content). If he hasn't made waves, I would instead see that as a positive attribute and a likely indicator of neutrality in future RfAs. Dekimasuよ! 10:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest with you, looking over the oppose rationales from your first two RfB's I have to say I'm shocked... some of those reasons were pretty lame. That being said, there was an undercurrent in them that said, Joe doesn't have experience in the areas where 'crats work. He doesn't work there and doesn't have a footprint in them. You've run for 'crat twice, you've been told that you need experience in the areas where crats work. You claim to monitor RfA/RfB's so you should know that people want to see experience in those areas, yet you haven't prevailed it upon yourself to gain that experience? I was going to pose it as a question, why? But I decided that if you really wanted to work in these areas, then you would have gained a some experience therein. You would have taken to heart the comments from previous RfB's questioning your preparation for the tasks at hand. You would have taken to heart the objections posed to others who have failed their RfB's. The fact that you have not done so says that you didn't listen to the community's voice when it speaks or you don't care. Looking at your edit history, I see somebody who is incredibly silo'ed in his edits. 80 plus percent of your edits relate to Japan. Almost all of the AfD's I saw you involved with were on Japan. If you exclude the month of May, where you participated in a handful of RfA's, you've only been involved in 2 RfA's in the past two years! I'm sorry, but if you are interested in a job get some experience and desire to work those jobs. The fact that you have virtually no experience in any of the areas where 'crats work has me wondering why you want to be a 'crat?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So in order to "have experience", I need to post a lot to WT:RFA, or participate in every/most RfA and RfB? I don't think posting comments on that page or posting a comment to every RfX shows any more knowledge of how the process works than posting an opinion on an AfD shows knowledge of the AfD process. There are people here who oppose every candidate for no reason, or for bizarre reasons such as "we have too many", or just because the person is feeling contrary. I don't think these people have a true understanding of the process or they would be posting a valid and more specific reason and actually trying to determine if the person was familiar with a wide range of policies, guidelines, and processes. The processes involved in acting as a bureaucrat are fairly simple: review RfX discussions to determine consensus and then close the discussion accordingly; review requests for username changes to determine if they are within policy and then respond to them accordingly; and reviewing information on bot requests and information and recommendations presented by the BAG regarding pending bot requests and make the changes in bot status accordingly. The job of a bureaucrat, in almost every way, is far simpler than that of an admin. The only difficult part is determining consensus on particularly contentious RfXs (the other parts are pretty straight forward, IMO).
Yes, the job is fairly straight forward, but you have shown no interest in any of the areas where 'crats work. Zero. You've shown no desire to acquire experience in any of these areas, despite the fact that that the issue was brought up at your last RfB and at most of the failed RfB's over the past year. If you had been paying attention to the previous RfB's you would know that having demonstratable experience/exposure to 'crat areas is expected. You also missed an important part of being an admin/crat in your above description and that is to listen to what the community says. The community has spoken generally (and specifically to you) about what the general expectations are, and those general expectation include garnering a token about of experience in the 'crat areas BEFORE gaining the tools. The fact that you refuse, doesn't speak well to your listening to what the community presents before you. I might be able to over look a lack of experience in somebody submitting their name to RfB for the first time, those candidates are the one's who might not have contemplated running for it, but decided to give it a go nonetheless. The fact that this is your third attempt, indicates that you've given this some thought, but still refuse to listen to the community's expectations. The fact that I can't see any reason, based upon your past edit patterns that you need or want the use the tools, makes me wonder why you want the 'crat hat? Let me draw a comparison to RfA, on occassion people will submit their names for RFA, and state a desire to work in a specific area. Now if they explicitly state they want to work a specific area, there is an expectation that they have some experience in that area. Otherwise the community cannot judge them. Similarly, if there is no experience in those areas, the question becomes how sincere are they about working there? And how many of them actually perform work in those areas after they get the bit? If there is no involvement before hand, what are the odds of continued involvement afterwards? I just don't see you working in 'crat areas. Finally, you make an argument that posting to crat area talk pages doesn't make one really qualified, then you cite the example of a person who opposes everybody with "we have too many." Well, your argument fails because we know those people don't understand the communities guidelines/expectations, We know that they have bizarre or generally unaccepted philosophical positions related to these tasks. We know that because they are involved. With you, we have no clue as to how you weigh various issues at the various 'crat areas because you have zero experience there.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To sum it up, I don't think posting a lot of comments to the talk page or to a lot of RfXs necessarily means the person in question has a good grasp of the applicable policies, guidelines, and processes, and I know the processes very well as I've had years of experience working with them and applying them as an admin. Stating that I have "virtually no experience" in these areas is just not true. Rather, the criteria you are using to assess my knowledge and experience is based on what I believe is faulty reasoning. If you have specific questions which you think would accurately determine my knowledge and experience, feel free to add them above and I will answer them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let me redact, you have no demonstrated experience in any of the areas where 'crats work and no demonstrated willingness to work in those areas despite previous RfB attempts where this issue was raised?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First, let me say that as an admin, I don't see anything wrong. But after reading Majorly's oppose v!ote, I am swayed to oppose. Sorry. America69 (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Lack of visible experience in the areas 'crats work in. Nihonjoe, posting at RfA, T:RfA, all the rest might not show that you know the policies, but it provides a way for the community to check you know the policies - the same reason we wouldn't give a user with 500 edits the tools. Yes, they might be excellent edits, but with such a small number it is difficult to make sure that the person grasps all the relevant policies. Of course, if you spent time around RfA, you'd know this. I note that a similar point was brought up in your last RfB, and that this is a point you have obviously failed to address. We wouldn't promote an admin who failed to address points from a previous RfA, yet alone a 'crat. The problem with your attitude (well, the main one, there are several) is this - as a bureaucrat, you will be required to judge community consensus in RfAs, weeding out opposes based on complete bollocks and making a decision when consensus is on a knife-edge between "yes, we want him as an admin" and "no, we don't want him as an admin". The idea that a prospective admin or 'crat should be experienced in the areas in which he or she wishes to work is an accepted one, and I don't like the idea of RfA yea/nay decisions being made by a man whose opinion of what is or is not needed for a potential admin or bureaucrat runs completely against the grain of what the community feels. I've probably phrased this all rather badly, but I hope I got my opinion across. Ironholds (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~oppose~~ per Majorly, per Dank. And yes, more participation at WP:RFA, WT:RFA and WP:BN would give us a better idea as to how you think about RFA. It would increase your exposure. The more people know you, the more people know if they want to trust you with more buttons. Also, supporters need only agree with the nom statement. They do not need elaboration on their rationale. What purpose is their in endlessly detailing all of the candidate's finer qualities? Opposers need to offer indicators as to why the supporters are off base, so we generally need something more to go on for an oppose. The only time supporters need to comment further is to counter oppose arguments. My sense from the answers is that you would raise the already high bar for RFA. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 15:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of detailing a candidate's finer qualities is so that, in close calls, the Bureaucrats can make a more fair assessment of the candidate. In closures that are in the gray area, details provided by the supporters (and those in the neutral zone) are just as important as details provided by the opposition when Bureaucrats are trying to determine consensus. Kingturtle (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to KT's point, I have no problem at all with flowery supports for respected editors at RFA or RFB, especially after it's pretty clear that someone won't pass, it's good for the morale of the candidate and everyone else, too. Nihonjoe is certainly a respected editor. - Dank (push to talk) 15:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The most important things in a crat are integrity and trust of the community; so ask yourselves, does Nihonjoe have that trust? Number of edits is less important, more important is the quality of those edits. When closing a gray area RFA/B, regardless of which side it is closed on, someone won't be happy. The question is, can that crat put forth a sound rationale for why he/she closed it that way; so ask yourselves, can Nihonjoe do that? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and vice-versa, how much the candidate trusts the community. The candidate came to the RfB community a couple of years ago, and they said not yet, he needed more experience with RfA. Look at what he's done over the past two years; did he trust the judgment of the community? If someone fails RFA, does the exact opposite of all the feedback they got from the opposition at the RFA, then runs again, should they pass? - Dank (push to talk) 02:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, most of the previous opposes were comments like "It's too soon after the Essjay issue" and "it's too soon after your previous RfB" and "We have too many bureaucrats". While there were a few that recommended participation in WT:RFA, I still maintain that active participation in WT:RFA does not equate understanding of how RfX works, with the same thing applying to commenting in RfX discussions. I've shown above (very clearly, I believe) that I completely understand the RfX system and applicable policies, guidelines and procedures. Others here have commented that they believe I'd be very even-handed and fair (even many of the opposes), so I think opposing simply because I haven't posted a lot at RfX discussions or on WT:RFA is a bit disingenuous. I encourage you to look at my record. I'm certainly not perfect, but there really is no doubt I understand everything applicable to doing this particular job. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 14 oppose votes in your 2nd run, 4 said that you would make the wrong call on promoting Danny even over 100 oppose votes, one had a problem with your statement that COI could be discounted at RFA if it was admitted, 1 didn't like your sig (heh, things don't change much do they?), one said "per my standards", one said "per the other votes", and the rest said that you didn't have enough experience or hadn't distinguished yourself at RFA. I don't think this was a rough or an odd crowd; those sound like fairly standard objections to me. - Dank (push to talk) 04:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struck vote to reduce pile on. Dloh cierekim 00:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with regret. Potential bureacrats should have demonstrated thought leadership in WT:RFA and at WP:RFA. I haven't seen that from you. I'd liek to see you step up your involvement here, like Avi did after his first RfB. Majoreditor (talk) 02:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as I have found your attitude and behaviour at Talk:Dan Willis (author) to be disconcerting and, at times, bordering on the biziarre when it comes to discussing basic concepts such as notability in relation to articles which you have created or edited. I have had to resolve to mediation in order to discuss this issue with you in a civil and reasonable fashion. I don't think you are sufficiently sober or level headed person to be taking this responsibility. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This whole issue revolves around you refusing to accept that discussions which haven't had any input for three months or seven months (respectively) are likely not going to continue to get any response. As the discussions took up a large section of the talk page, I saw no reason to to have them there and so archived them, making sure a link to the archive was left. You, however, refuse to allow the discussion to be archived as you don't like the result of the discussion. You brought in mediation because of your refusal to accept archiving of very old and ignored discussions. If you want to continue to the discussion, feel free to continue it there, as there's no reason to bring it here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lets assume for a moment you were 100% right on the issue of Dan Willis, so we can set aside our disagreements about that article. What is of concern to me is your incivility. Until I came across this article, I don't think I had ever corresponded with you or had any disagreements with you in the past. However, something set you off on a series of personal attacks [1][2][3][4] & [5]. You even went on to attack an independent third party editor who responded to a request for a third opinion on the matter[6]. I have had many disagreements with a lot of editors in my time, but frankly I have never come across an editor who has been this uncivil. I cannot readily explain this, because I don't remember being uncivil to you and I think I was quite polite under the circumstances. It may be that there may be some other reason for these attacks - perhaps you thought that my challenging the quality of the article was an afront or brought you dishonour. Please explain. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That looks Nihonjoe's another COI issue and RS matter to me. The article and the photo were created/taken by Nihonjoe at some convention. In the same category, the Blp article, Bradley Williams does not have even any "reference". I wonder Nihonjoe even correctly understand V and RS policy either given his creation of a "marginally notable" writers in U.S.--Caspian blue 13:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no COI. I have met both in passing at that convention and that's it (which Gavin.collins knows, but refuses to accept). They aren't my close friends, and I've never seen them outside of passing them (and obviously taking pictures of them) in the halls at a convention. Please remember to assume good faith. Dan Willis has been determined to meet the requirements for notability (even if only marginally). As for the Williams article, that was just created as a stub and I haven't ever had time to go back and properly flesh it out. If you don't like the article, feel free to nominate it for deletion, or better yet, try to improve it with references. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt there are any COI issues to be discussed, and I am sure Nihonjoe is familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as anyone here, including WP:CIVIL. Regardless of the merits of the articles he has created, Nihonjoe has serious anger management issues that he needs to address if he is to develop normal healthy relationships with his fellow editors. He has to accept that his actions will always be open to challenge and he can't make other editors accept his point of view even if he is right. I think ignoring the reasonable arguments of an administrator and then attacking him [7] demonstrated his poor judgement in this respect. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, basically per Majorly. I can't see anything seriously wrong with your contribs, but I also can't recall any significant input you've had into anything around RFA recently. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose, per Majorly re the low participation in this area (we need active people), and also low participation on other wikis. Furthermore, "go to hell" over on jawiki is inappropriate. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how low participation on other wikis has anything to do with this discussion. As for the "go to hell" comment, that was just me getting frustrated with a psycho Japanese editor who was mad at me for blocking him here. He refused to leave me alone even after being asked to do so multiple times, and as it was late at night and I was tired, I snapped at him. I've said multiple times that I'm not perfect, and that likely wasn't the most effective way to deal with the issue. I did finally get him to stop, though, by getting one of the admins there to tell him to stop his harassment. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Involvement in other projects is an indicator of experience and wiki-maturity. People who are not active on other projects have only one set of experiences on how to manage wikis. The smaller wikis are great playgrounds for people wishing to try new approaches and develop proposals that would not succeed here due to English Wikipedia being a slow adopter.

Resorting to "go to hell" on another wiki is part of the concern about lack of experience on other wikis - I doubt you would have said the same thing here, no matter how annoyed you were. You would have reported it to ANI; likewise, you should have engaged a local jawiki admin when you felt unable to deal with the situation. It is very common for people from other projects to look at the list of crats to find someone able to help them with a complex problem. Perfection isnt required, however our crats should be respected abroad. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not because of the candidate's distrust issue, WP:Incivility, WP:COI and WP:Neutrality and other concerns that admins generally do not carry with them, as well as his obvious lack of B'crat activities, and his not enough vision. I know that by addressing my vote here at this time, at least some editor, my long-term ardent fan would "coincident" appear to support the candidate after me, but here I am. Usually, I do not vote for obvious WP:NOTNOW or WP:SNOW cases or RFA/Bs with below 70% support except in few occasions like this. This is obviously not gonna be successful for the legitimate concerns that I'm Spartacus!, Jaybdv and others correctly have raised in the oppose section. "The most important things in a crat are integrity and trust of the community; does Nihonjoe have that trust?" That answer is "Absolutely not". That is just because of the fact that I and the candidate had very bad experiences with each other, but also because of the issues addressed in the first sentence. I felt odd at his "sudden (maybe re)participation in RFAs" since May but his suddenness proves to be a pavement for the RfB as Majorly pointed out. Given the candidate's history, the candidate does not have a patience to try himself to get the community high expectation in specific areas such as Checkuser, or Arbitrator aside from B'crat. He used to be a Checkuser clerk but quit for whatever reason. He ran for RfB previously twice, but did not try "hard" to get the (narrowly RFA/B) community's approval for two years, but suddenly reappears for getting the new tool as insisting that he is "qualified". Also his ArbCom election pages show low voters participation compared to other candidates. It is also interesting to note that his project members opposed him to become an Arbitrator. He had trust issues back then and still has.
Moreover, he is one of "a couple of admins" that made me very frustrated over the Adminship system and acknowledge of Wikipedia's failure. He let sockpuppeters harass me, so I started to learn how to request for Checkuser. Also I began participating in RfA to prevent other "uncivil/rude" or "unqualified" editors from becoming admins in spite of my limited English. For a while, I did not understand why opposers have to give "good rationales" all the time to supporters who merely say "per nom, or "support" without any distinctive rationale. So I conflicted with Balloonmoon (now as I'm Spartacus!) and WJBScribe (why I mention this? Because my fan has rehashed this over and over as denying to look at the relationship between them after then), but if the two run for RfB/ArbCom, well I can happily support them because they've earned my "trust" through the time here and at Commons even though the former's RfA-philosophy is different from mine. However, Nihonjoe is poor at handling/meditating disputes, and criticism and has ownership issue regarding "images"/articles taken/edited by himself. If you ask "look who's talking?" Well, I'm not an admin. I've met many uncivil admins, but at least none of them do violate COI unlike Nihonjoe, so I respect them as "admin" despite their human nature. Look at his latest blocking log on 114.164.204.239 (talk · contribs).[8] That has something to do with Jayvdb's diff. Although I think the anon's edit reminds me of some sockpuppeter that I've known, Nihonjoe was an "involved admin", he should've brought it to AN/ANI.
He may be a good editor in some narrowed areas and be trusted by "some" members of the projects to which he has dedicates. However, he has been frequently accused of "biased' and "partial" by many editors from East Asia who are working with him. That is not because he behaves "neutral", but because his view is arbitrary and inconsistent. Moreover, when he gives "3RR warning" or others to editors in disputes, he only gives "one side" because the other side is either his friend or his friend support the other. Another COI example, this is what Collectonian (talk · contribs) filed against Nihonjoe Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive350#Concerns of admin abuse by Nihonjoe (To stop the stupid reverting by Collectonian) Jan. 2008. And see his block of Collectonian on 13 February 2009. I've disagreed with Collectonian's deletionistic view at AFDs, but the two frequently edit together and dispute or agree, so he should've not taken the case. Moreover, Nihonjoe spread outrageous claim to some users and even via offline as if that were a truth. I know it and he knows it. If you want to know about it, you can ask me. My initial conflict with him stems from his such attitude.--Caspian blue 16:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating. However, you have several misleading or outright false statements here. I've never been a checkuser clerk, ever. I don't have a personal project, so there's no such thing as "my project members" as I'm a member of several different projects here. I have never let sockpuppets harass you. Regarding the block log of 114.164.204.239, that was some Japanese editor who refused to play by the rules and was therefore blocked here. He continued to be abusive after being blocked, going so far as to harass me on the Japanese Wikipedia as well until I got an admin there to get him to back off. There was nothing "involved" about it as he was simply a vandal, so he got blocked. Yes, I've been accused of bias from editors on all sides of specific issues, but note that it's been from all sides of those specific issues. Since I mainly deal with Japan-related issues when it comes to Asia, I'll note that on Japan-Korea issues, I've been accused of bias by both Japanese and Korean editors, on the same issue, so I think I'm doing pretty well if I'm getting it from both sides. When 3RR warnings are given, I give them to anyone who has actually violated 3RR; if that happens to be one person, no matter which "side" they are on, they get the warning. As for your concern about "outrageous claim" being spread, I have no idea what you're talking about, nor do you have any idea what I do offline. You have never given me the benefit of the doubt, and have been in my face since the first time we interacted (back when you were editing under other names). I've tried to be fair, but when you refuse to work with anyone who disagrees with you, that makes it difficult to come to any sort of consensus with you. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my misunderstanding of you as a "former Checkuser clerk", but given your "vigorous contributions" to the Checkuser field", and your "strong refusal" to apology for your unwarranted allegation, I thought so. However that confirms me that your allegation spreading even via offline in March, 2009 can never be justifiable nor forgivable. You are required to have a higher integrity and morality than ordinary editors. However, you have failed to show me anything. You've closely watched articles that I and other editors, including your friend Oda Mari (she is also biased and edits war, but I try to think of her as "a fair editor" for her project) and sockpuppeters have edited. However, you did not do anything to the endlessly block-evading sockpuppeters such as Azukimonka, Michael Friedrich, Pabopa, and too many socks and even other harassers. I've tried to work with you and to get over our past, but you've given huge disappointments and even made false accusations about me several times. As I said, you're the reason I started participating in RFAs and relying on RFCU. You're still making false accusation here, DROP IT. I changed my name "once" via CHU, and never used a sock. Whenever I asked your help, you've coldly sneered my asking. Given your answer, you have obviously no understanding of what CHU works too, one of B'crat's working areas. I have many disagreement with others, but "none of admins" frequently violated COI or BLP user policy unlike you. Your block of Collectian is a good instance.--Caspian blue 17:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're just going to have to agree to disagree as you never agree with anything I post. I don't know what you mean by "vigorous contributions to the Checkuser field" as that's not something I've ever written (nor would I as it makes no sense). I don't know what "unwarranted allegation" you are talking about, either. Every time I encounter you, you are in the middle of some storm or another. I don't specifically watch any articles just because you are editing them; if I'm watching an article, it's because I have some interest in it. I haven't heard of Azukimonka or Pabopa, and I've only been peripherally involved with anything to do with Michael Friedrich, so I'm not sure why you are angry at me for anything regarding them. As for the rest, that's all your opinion, and you are welcome to it. I'll be happy to drop anything to do with you as soon as you do. I've gone out of my way to not be involved in anything regarding you or any articles you are actively editing, so I think I'm doing my part to try to avoid any issues with you. While you are welcome to participate in any RfX, I would have thought it obvious that you might want to try and avoid an obvious conflict and not participated in this one. This is the last I'm going to say on this issue. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're artfully evading the topic on your "offline contact" and "use of other names" to bash me for your wishiful thinking. If you had behaved nice to editors in "dispute with you", many editors would have not easily accused you of being a "biased admin" and "unfair admin". Fairness does not mean that you're "fair" to your friends/project members. Moreover, no, you knew them, because whenever they stalked me and tried to initiated edit warring, you appeared to the articles. I asked your help many times, but you never cared to listen to but always uncivil responses. Sadly, I only see you've been in the center of "squabbling with others" for your ownership issue on your image, and your edits. So we may see what we only want to see. You're welcome to run for bureaucratship any time, but I have a right to state what I've seen from you because bureaucratship is one way to reconfirm your admin ability--Caspian blue 20:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for RfBs and RfAs are quite different (although they may overlap in some regards); therefore, RfBs are not in any way, shape or form admin reconfirmations. Kingturtle (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input, so I can learn a new thing. Therefore, we can say RfB is one way to evaluate candidate's admin ability and to review "the trust from the community".--Caspian blue 20:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak opposehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MarkS/XEB/live.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">to where I won't support. Sorry. Tavix | Talk 17:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious what you mean by "he said he would work at XfD". When did I say that? Also, I've done quite a lot of work at XfD, though I it's mostly with speedy deletion and closing discussions rather than commenting in them (though I do that as well, and not just in Japan-related discussions). I've done admin work in quite a number of areas over the last three years since I was made an admin. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, in my RfA I said that I'd like to participate in WP:RFPP, yet in the two and a half years since, I've barely touched the area. Sometimes people get involved in areas that they had no initial interest in, and very rarely can you accurately guess what you'll be doing in X number of months. Just throwing that out there, not trying to weigh in on one side or the other. (this is also assuming that your "said he would work at XfD" comment is based on his initial RfA) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto but substitute DYK for me.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No offense, but when I see your name I remember seeing it in some sort of arguments or civility issues in the past; I don't have diffs or links offhand, but I see some of the other !votes above mentioned civility as well, and I think a 'crat ought to be relatively pristine. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Further to Majorly's comments, I am struck by the inappropriateness of the answer to Q.5; you were not then a Bureaucrat, so there is no reason to simply observe and not involve yourself - and participation would likely give reviewers a better understanding of your working knowledge of judging such issues.I am further concerned that you are requesting 'crat flags for a third time, and seemingly without really addressing the issue of non-participation noted above and in the failed requests; my impression is that you do not believe that the participation issue is valid and the concerns expressed are therefore negligible. I also wonder why you wish to aspire to the office if you are not seemingly concerned by the issue raised here and previously(edit comment; I should have simply said, "Per User:I'm Spartacus' response." instead of what the foregoing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I indicated, I don't believe it's appropriate for me to "close" discussions in which I've participated. No, I wasn't a bureaucrat then (or at this time, for that matter), but since bureaucrats don't close discussions in which they participate, I'm doing the same thing. I think my comments on the others more than make up for recusal on the others. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) To be honest, I don't really understand this rationale for opposing the candidate. Do we really want a bureaucrat who demonstrates participation by making comments in WP:RFA or WT:RFA just to get the <script type="text/javascript"src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Henrik/js/automod.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>buttons? This editor has been around for a long time and it should be fairly easy to judge whether or not they can be trusted to go with consensus rather than their own point of view which is pretty much what a bureaucrat has to do (in re RfA). The way I see it, the candidate believes that he is a good judge of consensus and gives the impression that he'll abide by consensus and doubts about these factors are legitimate. But, reasons given for !votes in RfAs say nothing about the ability to discern or abide by consensus. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 23:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I shall try to explain to the both of you my concerns regarding participation; without the candidate making comments in Requests (other than when they have "strong opinions") it is difficult to judge whether their grasp of policy is as comprehensive as it might be - 'Crats are supposed to weigh the arguments in close run Requests, and the greater weight is with those whose comments are more in line with policy and practice, and it would be preferable to have examples of Nihonjoe demonstating an understanding of the nuances of the environment. To add to that, I am further concerned that this lack of appetite in getting involved has been noted previously and another request for flags has been made without addressing the issue around which the last request failed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It seems to me that it would have been possible to construct a case that not taking strong stances at RfA and not having your own criteria could have made you better able to be an "honest broker" on behalf of the community. Being neutral on these issues could make you better able to do the crat's job of weighing arguments and speaking for the community. You'd probably need to be able to point to a history of doing just that, for example a substantial body of work closing discussions and weighing consensus at AfD. Of course to make that case, you need to grapple with the opposing argument. It seems to me, you have chosen instead to reject the entire opposing argument, just insisting you do know the procedures. I accept that. But that isn't really enough. We need to know you will be able to understand how to read the flow of a discussion and to come to decisions that both sides will usually see as fair. That involves being able to understand where both sides are coming from and address their arguments in a reasoned way that is free of rancour. (I don't think Dank was being "disingenuous" or that Sparatcus is guilty of "faulty reasoning".) That you haven't been able to do that in the discussion here speaks volumes. Dean B (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Please review my unfortunate interaction with Nihonjoe here. Nihonjoe did not follow the speedy deletion policy. Did his speedy deletion really improve the situation? It should have been clear to him that I was intending to expand the article at that time. It is interesting to see that the majority of administrators who commented at that ANI agreed with Nihonjoe's stance. However that stance is in contradiction to the speedy deletion criteria. Perhaps the cohort of administrators as a whole are tacitly changing the speedy deletion criteria to suit their own standards? In any case, Nihonjoe made two bad calls (firstly the speedy deletion itself, secondly closing the deletion review). I don't trust him. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I knew that there was at least one time where I questioned Nihonjoe's actions. Axl approached me on my user page. My response to him was, "Was it a good speedy deletion? No... his speedy was dubious, but he tried to rectify it by userfying---which in my book is acceptable. People will make bad calls, but he didn't blow you off. Userfying (IMO) is a preferable method to recreating---if it was improperly speedied once, you might end up wasting more time defending the article than building it against the next speedy deleter... He closed a DRV that he probably shouldn't have... but not worth making a big deal out of. In short, work on the article and move on." (and for once the use of ... in my writing actually means I've removed some text!---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 12:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are misrepresenting the facts here. The speedy deletion was entirely appropriate (as noted by several other admins there), and well within policy. It wasn't even controversial. The DRV was closed because the article (such as it was) was userfied to allow you to work on it, so there was no reason to keep the DRV open and I closed it per WP:IAR. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 14:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, while I defended you at the time, I the speedy was not "entirely appropriate" nor was your closing the DRV. I didn't think it was worth getting worked up on because you did userfy the article and you close was questionable. I just didn't think it was worth getting worked up about, but in no way should that be taken as this was in fact an A3 deletable article.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are other (albeit not currently nominated) candidates more active in the areas that bureatcracy requires activity in. In RFAs, opposes are often given for not being active in XFD or being involved in patrol at all, and I think that applies here, albeit with different areas being the issue. Esteffect (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. When I see a new candidate at WP:RfA, I not only expect them to have knowledge of our policies, but to be active in the areas the plan to work in. As a candidate for bureaucratship, I expect the same. Nihonjoe has not demonstrated that, leading to my oppose. — Σ xplicit 20:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per evidences shown by User:Axl OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While i don't doubt that he "lurks" at CHU and RFA like he claims, he needs to have documented experience in those areas. Triplestop (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above and I don't think Nihojoe is a right person for the job because he does not act neutral.--Historiographer (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I sat on this all week. I just can't support. I'm sorry Nihonjoe, but I feel you are just not ready yet. iMatthew : Chat 18:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral[edit]

You seem like an excellent and experienced administrator, and I've seen you around quite a bit. That said, I share Majorly's concerns. Judging by your contribs you've only been active at RfA for the past month or so, and before that, you rarely ever participated in 'crat-related areas. While I don't view this as something to oppose over, I'm afraid I can't support. Hence, neutral for now. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've participated quite a lot more than that (having been here for 3½ years and all, with over 50K edits), but until the last month or so, I'd had a long spell where I didn't have the time to participate as much as I'd like (due to heavy involvement in creating and improving the actual encyclopedia content of the site). I still watched the page and read through may of the noms. Recently I've once again had the time to participate as often as I have in the past. So, yes, in the recent past, I haven't participated as much, but I have plenty of experience in this area. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but should this request succeed, will you still visit and/or participate in RfA? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. And I won't close any RfAs in which I participate, either. :) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good then, moved to support. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Can't make up my mind. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 00:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: 'crat tools are not necessary for editing/creating content which is what this user seems focused on right now (as above answer to Juliancolton, emphasis on editing skills, and lack of 'crat related experience inc. on WP:RFA demonstrate). Coldmachine^Talk 07:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral ~~(leaning to support)~~ I have no doubt in my mind that this candidate can continue to be impartial and objective as a crat. What I do mull over though are the points raised by the opposing !voters. I went through the candidate's (great) contributions but I could not find a single comment made to WT:RFA, although RFA is an area they want to work on (while I know that WT:RFA does not have the best reputation, it is useful to evaluate one's knowledge of that area). I did notice the candidate !voting is several RFAs though. But while I agree that adminship is not a big deal and one important question is whether the candidate for it might abuse the tools, I do not see much help for the candidates in !voting support only based on these two aspects (while it might be flattering for the candidate to know that you trust them, it's not really feedback they might find useful). That said, I really cannot evaluate the candidate's knowledge in the crat related areas (especially RFA) at the moment but I hope they can provide further insights by answering further questions ~~(like Aitias' question #8)~~ (stupid edit conflicts, still, I'm not convinced yet, will think about it further...). Regards So Why 08:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I knew something was bothering me and Axl found it. I remember that discussion well and it was just 2 months ago. Being bold is nice and good but the way Nihonjoe handled the DRV is not how I want an admin to behave. The deletion was outside policy (as Amalthea remarked correctly) and if this were an RFA, it would be reasons for concern. But to close the DRV about one's own actions oneself is simply too "bold". DRV serves to discuss whether an admin's actions were correct and it should not be the same admin closing his own DRV if they are not willing to undo their actions. Userfying is not an undoing, it's essentially saying "my deletion was correct but here is the article to work on it until I like it". Nihonjoe might see closing the DRV as natural but he should not have made that decision because he was clearly convinced that his previous actions were correct as well. The point is that an admin and much less a crat should never do anything that even looks like they were using the tools to their own gain. Defending such actions as boldness misses this essential point. It's not enough to lead me to oppose but it's enough to keep me from supporting. Regards So Why 12:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can see my contributions to WT:RFA here and here. While I haven't posted a lot of comments, I have participated when a topic catches my eye (which isn't all that often, apparently). You can also find comments regarding me here and here. I don't think regular posting on WT:RFA is necessary to understand how the process for RFA and RFB works. I've participated in enough of them and followed the discussions enough over the last 3+ years that I understand the process just fine. It's really not all that complicated a process despite what some people seem to think. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might not be complicated but standards and expectations, as well as sentiment, at RFA have changed significantly since 2007 and I just cannot evaluate if you are "up-to-date" (so to speak) on those changes based on your contributions from 2 years ago. Regards So Why 09:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I've indicated here a few times, I regularly follow the discussions, but see no need to post regularly if I have nothing to add which hasn't already been posted. If you wish to remain neutral, that is your choice, but I want to make sure you are basing your opinion on something other than a perceived lack of knowledge or experience. I understand that the RfA process has changed since 2007 as I've been here on the site that whole time and I've followed the changes. I don't think I'd call it "significant" though, as the basic process has remained mostly the same during that time. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 10:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is the point, since you have not contributed in that area since 2007, I really have nothing to evaluate you in that regard, thus I will remain neutral until further discussion here or elsewhere convinces me to !vote another way. I might ask you some questions, too, once I figure out, what to ask that is. Regards So Why 10:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral You appear to have very good judgment demonstrated in the answers to the questions posed but you don't seem to be using your admin tools very much so why would you need even more tools? The opposes are also convincing. In the end I don't think it's enough that you wouldn't abuse the bureaucrat tools, you have to need them and plan to use them. I'm only commenting because I put a good bit of time into evaluating the information and deciding not to make a decision is harder than making one. Drawn Some (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As he's requesting them, I'm sure he plans to use them. Also, User:JamesR/AdminStats indicates Nihonjoe's used the tools over 5000 times, which is more than about 85% of the admins. And a lot of the ones higher than him are infamous for those higher totals; a certain amount of forbearance could be seen as a positive trait. Dekimasuよ! 02:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning to support Per SoWhy ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 14:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning to support I'm not sensing any major alarns as much as community consensus that more experience and heightened familiarty is needed so I could also be swayed. -- Banjeboi 08:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'd like to support, but am dismayed a little by interaction with Axl and application of speedy deletion there, sorry. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moral Support? :) I've interacted with NihonJoe before (reference question #12 above) but I don't know him that well, nor am I really sure what a 'crat is or does. :) BOZ (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bureaucrat = "An administrator so bland that they haven't managed to upset anyone." –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Once needs to listen to messengers, not shoot them. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't decide, and so going neutral to voice my thoughts: I feel that the candidacy is a tad weak, but would concede that the candidate seems to be an unproblematic and active administrator. This one is a difficult call; I suppose he'd be an okay bureaucrat—and I'm thus not minded to oppose—but I don't feel I can confidently support for now. Nothing personal: you seem like a nice chap. AGK 18:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I can trust Joe that he wouldn't do anything crazy if he was a crat, however the lack of involvement in crat areas concerns me to the point where I cannot support. Best. MBisanz ^talk 21:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Not enough experience in bureaucrat-related areas, but you're a good admin, so I do not wish to oppose. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Read as moral support! -- Tinu Cherian - 04:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Almost--Abce2|AccessDenied 20:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.