Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Oleg Alexandrov (talk | contribs) at 16:20, 14 April 2007 (question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Nihonjoe

(3/0/1); Scheduled to end at 16.00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Nihonjoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - 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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? (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)[reply]
A
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 14:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  3. Support. I trust this user 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)[reply]

Oppose

  1. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Isn't this kind of... soon since the last attempt? – Chacor 16:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Nihonjoe_2&oldid=122772534"