Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 4/Bureaucrat discussion: Difference between revisions

Discussion

I feel that this RfB deserves a discussion. There are two main opposition arguments, albeit they overlap. The first set of opposition arguments bring examples of Joe's interpretation, or lack thereof, of policies, and express concern that Joe does not express judgment often, and when he does, there are concerns with that judgment. The second class of opposition relates to the pedophilia issue. There are scattered oppositions that do not relate to how Joe would perform as a bureaucrat, and some can actually be considered "grudge" oppositions, but their presence or absence would not affect the outcome.

Of those that opposed to the pedophilia issue, some did so not because of the perception of this being a referendum on such editors, but because Joe's judgment when handling the issue led them to be concerned. However, as was pointed out in the discussion, neither Joe nor Ryan seemed to be in gross violation of wikipedia policies, and they handled their disagreement on talk pages, so neither should be penalized for following the proper dispute resolution channels. Furthermore, oppositions that refer to pedophilia only, or ones that are being used as a platform regarding the ability of such people to edit wikipedia do not directly address Joe's ability to act as a bureaucrat, and that needs to be taken into consideration. If we were to ignore all pedophilia-related opposition, this request likely has shown enough consensus to pass; but we cannot completely ignore them, as many people did not oppose on a platform basis, but based on how Joe exercised his judgment, tact, and understanding during the process.

All that being said, my personal opinion after analyzing the discussion is one I can attribute to Redux on my own instance of bureaucrat discussion, and I believe it applies here too. These requests are not opinion validation issues with some fluid cutoff, they are exercises in determining whether there is significant opposition to the candidate. Even if "significant opposition" means something less restrictive today (4:1 or 5:1) than it did last year (9:1), the concerns raised about Joe's ability to judge consensus in discussions - such as addressing community concerns from the last RfB and his understanding of both the spirit and letter of our policies and guidelines, be it regarding blocks, AfD's, or similar, indicate to me that the community's raised concerns as to Joe's ability to function as a bureaucrat at this time is significant enough to prevent the finding of consensus to receive the bureaucrat maintenance tools.

However, as always, I am open to changing my mind due to suitably convincing arguments, as, obviously, I think this case tenuous enough that I am unwilling to unilaterally find no consensus. -- Avi (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that I am support #2, just want to say before someone slaps me with a crat chat message that I recuse from this discussion. bibliomaniac15 06:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, you do not have to recuse from the discussion of what the community consensus is, and how we arrive at it. All you must do is 1) recuse from closure and 2) be clear with your analysis that it your opinion of the community's discussion; not your opinion of the candidate. -- Avi (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's a settled view on that issue. Even though what you say is technically right, it is often worth erring on the side of caution here. People are likely to have concerns about someone who supported a candidate arguing that there is a consensus for them to be promoted (or vice versa). Expressing an opinion on the merits of the candidate sacrifices neutrality and I think the position of refraining from any action qua bureaucrat once one has supported or opposed is often wise. We general don't like admins closing AfDs that they have expressed an opinion on, even though it is possible to form a detached view of the outcome of the discussion that is independent from one's personal participation. WJBscribe (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• The opposition here is united and non-trivial. Recent evidence has effected a very visible negative trend – all but three of the opposes were posted in the final three days. When I see an opposition "vector" so pronounced and entirely explainable by a key revelation (see Oppose #3), I find it reasonable to place weight on the trend itself when it comes to the closure. The knee-jerk reaction, therefore, would be to close this as unsuccessful, but I think a more thorough analysis of the rush to opposition is needed. WJBscribe's comment in the "Discussion" section warrants particular consideration. Inasmuch as the opposition is united and forceful, it is almost entirely based on a single event. Poor judgement and an inability to apply discretion are cited by a majority of the opposition, but few are able to support these generalised assertions with broader evidence. What also needs to be considered is that many are opposing because Nihonjoe took one of two (arguably) defensible views. The protocol with regard to exposed pedophiles is blurry at best – on the one hand, we have Jimbo Wales unilaterally blocking a pedophile, and on the other, we have the ArbCom passing this unanimously. I don't intend to comment either way on the matter itself; my point is merely that the view that Wikipedia should be open to everyone not actively causing harm is defensible. What particularly weakens the opposition's case is the fact that many eschew clarity and reason in favour of noise and hyperbole. As a whole, the opposition comes across as needlessly aggressive, and many among the ranks have jumped to entirely unfair conclusions (for example, that Nihonjoe is pro-pedophilia). Overall, I'm torn. Whereas the opposition is definite, conglomerate, and substantial, it is also loud and often fails to support itself adequately. If I had to close it now, I'd probably go with "no consensus". —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• I bring the rather odd double COI to the table of having supported Joe at RFB and having created the template for blocking pedophiles. Among the factors I am taking into account are the community's continued expression that the bar for RFB should be lowered, the Joe's showing at all of his RFBs has been consistently positive, that the opposing side at the RFB did express itself as coherently as is required to be admitted into opinion, and that there may have been confusion in the opposing and supporting sides of what Joe actually said or did at the incident in question (did he or did he not unblock, did he or did he not support pedophiles, did he stop or not when arbcom intervened, etc). I'm still marinating this one in my head. MBisanz ^talk 08:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)