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)

I am not sure about your summary of the position:

"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."

I may have missed something, but I seem to be missing these examples. It seems to me that the opposition relies on one "giant" example, but seems to be a dearth of other evidence supporting the conclusion of the opposers which you identify. WJBscribe (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Responded below; thank you, Will. -- Avi (talk) 17:26, 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)

There's never been any question around bureaucrats who have commented on an RfX having to recuse themselves from taking part in a 'crat chat before. But we have more active bureaucrats than at many times in the past, so it's not going to cause any problems if some of us choose to recuse ourselves from this discussion. Warofdreams talk 10:49, 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)

I watched this RfB carefully and asked my question (#12) because I thought it might turn out close and that giving the candidate a chance to answer specifically that question might help make it clearer. If the "revelation" made by Ryan had not emerged, there would indeed have been a very clear consensus to promote. Nonetheless, Ryan's revelation did emerge and a significant body of opposition has followed it. I'm unconvinced that all of the oppose opinions are weighty - some, indeed, are certainly not, but I follow AD's thinking that it is, overall, substantial and much of that substance is, critically, (in one way of viewing it) based on a totally relevant concern, ie whether the candidate has good judgement or not. I agree with MBisanz, that there is some confusion around the edges of this body of opposition, but for me that's only enough to stop me going into "failed" territory. I cannot see consensus for "success" here and I would therefore agree with AD that I believe it to be "no consensus".

Going slightly offtopic, I'd like to take an opportunity to commend various editors for preventing this becoming a WP:BOSTONTEAPARTY. It certainly had the potential to go that way. If I had the time to a) do it and b) ensure I didn't omit anyone deserving, I'd sprinkle some Barnstars around for the deserving. So, if you're reading this and consider that you helped keep the heat down, consider yourself awarded a Barnstar by me. And thanked. --Dweller (talk) 10:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

My comments now reflect those general remarks I made yesterday on the RfB. There is a lot of hyperbole regarding the "pedophilia matter" - much noise and very little light - on both sides of the discussion.

A lot of the opposition over the pedophilia issue is couched in terms that they are concerned that Nihonjoe will follow too strictly the wording of policy and lack flexibility/a willing to IAR in the right circumstances. What I find surprising is that Nihonjoe is not an unknown quantity when it comes to making these sorts of a decision (as an RfA candidate might be) - he has been an admin for 3 1/2 years. But those opposing do not, as one might expect, cite a range of incidents over that period where he displays this alleged tendency - instead the conclusion is extrapolated from his participation in a discussion with Ryan last month. I have to say that I find this problematic - there is a dearth of examples of other instances of problematic judgment.

The remaining opposition over the issue is expressed differently. As I understand it, the position taken by the others is that prohibiting such people from participating in the project is such an obvious example of common sense that they cannot trust someone who does not support such a prohibition. It is not however the case that everyone except Nihonjoe agree on this point - a number of long term contributors have over the years expressed doubts regarding the approach we take in this area. To come to the conclusion that disagreeing (and Nihonjoe has expressed mere disagreement - he did not reverse the block) is not acceptable on some issue is an uneasy proposition.

I worry about the introduction of litmus tests to candidates - especially when this one has so little connection to the job of being a bureaucrat (which does not involve the blocking policy, indeed a bureaucrat could serve in that position without ever block/unblocking or even discussing a block). I also remember all too well the polarising effect of "bad sites" when the fight over that issue spilled over into RfX.

For those reasons, I think the bulk of the opposition is problematic and I don't think it has the weight that at first glance it may have. That said it is certainly valid opposition - those opposing make it clear that because of the "pedophilia issue" they simply do not trust Nihonjoe - that is something that must of course be taken into account.

What is threshhold needed for promotion at RfB? I do not think there is now much support for the position that some sky high landmark of 90% support is needed for bureaucrat appointment. I think this RfB falls into a discretionary area. I think it difficult to talk in the language of consensus. Wikipedia has rather twisted the meaning of that word and I worry with the conclusion that there would be a consensus to promote if this were an RfA, but maybe not because it's an RfB. Nevertheless it seems that a clearer and stronger demonstration of consensus is needed for an RfB to pass.

I find myself reaching the conclusion that a clear enough consensus exists for Nihonjoe to become a bureaucrat. Whilst the opposition is certainly valid, it is almost exclusively based on a single issue and has the limitation I have described, and a high level of support is demonstrated. WJBscribe (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thought-provoking, WJB. I find you leading me though into the realm of my personal opinion, versus my mandated position to assess the community's. I personally would reject an assessment of the candidate as having inherently flawed judgement based on this single incident (and indeed the large number of recent supporters would seem to agree), but what concerns me is that at least a sizable body of the community does not. Perhaps because that section of community feels so strongly about the single issue, perhaps not, but my role tells me to decide that it's irrelevant why, and it's irrelevant that I disagree on a single issue's importance. My cold dispassionate and impersonal reading of the RfB is that significant opposition to the candidate exists, regardless of my view of that opposition. And here's the rub: that it is rooted in a concern relevant to RfB (judgement) is crucial and makes it truly very difficult for me to discount it as being anything other than a bar to consensus. I'm not sure if I've been clear enough - I've found it hard to express myself on this one. --Dweller (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Will, above you indicated that you believe that there was only one major issue that was giving people concern as to Joe's judgment; I presume you mean the pedophile issue. I based my initial remarks saying that I saw non-pedophile-related concerns about judgment on the following opposition opinions: #1, #13, #15, #16, #19, and #22, which are not related to Joe's responses in the pedophilia incident. I believe that oppositions #3, #5, #6, #9, #12, #24, and #26, while not "platform anti-pedophilia" oppositions, are oppositions based on the judgment and actions displayed during the pedophilia incident. This is why I think that we must consider that there was opposition to Joe's judgment independent of the pedophilia issue, and how it isn't just a reaction to one event. Of course, I may be misinterpreting the opinions, which is why this discussion is necessary. -- Avi (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

  I don't disagree with that as such, but I would point out that although those opposes use the pedophilia point to make a wider criticism of Nihonjoe's judgment, and a couple say that there are other incidents where his judgment was similarly faulty, none actually give examples. Lets take Ryan's oppose (#3), which I chose because it started the ball rolling and because I hope Ryan will forgive me singling him out, he accuses Nihonjoe of a "flippant attitude", "process wonkery" and says that Nihonjoe is unable to move beyond the precise words of policy. But, despite 3 1/2 years of evidence of how Nihonjoe approaches being an administrator being available, he offers no other example of when Nihonjoe too rigidly followed policy. There is an assumption, pervasive amongst the opposition, that because Nihonjoe insited on policy to support this one block, he will always be too tightly constrained by policy and so will not make a good bureaucrat. I'm sorry but I don't think that point can be seen as strong unless supported by other evidence. There's very little in the discussion to suggest that the bulk of the opposition is not in fact "just a reaction to one event" - a lot of the opposers are very open in explaining that their position is based on that one event. Given that no other evidence was forthcoming, I do not think the opposition is strong enough to refuse to promote given that the discussion has ended at a point where I believe we have a discretion in assessing the final consensus. WJBscribe (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

  Will, I am going to play devil's advocate, so that if these points are successfully defended, it will make our decision all the clearer and stronger. Firstly, opposes do not have to bring specific examples. An editor is allowed to state that based on the sum total of their interactions or analysis of a candidate, they do not trust said candidate to perform the bureaucratic function of consensus measuring appropriately. This can be, and often was completely independent from the pedophilia issue. Furthermore, some editors did bring examples, although not specific diffs. Here are some that I found compelling::

  1. Oppose #13: "…I believe that Nihonjoe just can't ignore all rules and read consensus properly in AFDs or CSDs. He's more of a vote counter when he closes AFDs, and I seen him deny CSDs on articles that I deleted five min later, on articles won't stand a snowball chance in AFD or prod, and are common sense deletions, or doesn't claim notabilty other than a unsourced local student award or such and meets CSD criteria. I can't see him close controversal RFAs and that's a problem."
  2. Oppose #14: "…but concerns about Nihonjoe's judgement are not new. In his previous RfB, I see concerns over judgement in the oppose section. Just as disconcerting, I see Nihonjoe actively questioning opposes in a manner which makes me unconfortable. I want to see bureaucrats whose judgement I can trust and respect, but also bureaucrats who can admit to their infrequent mistakes in judgement. I'm not so comfortable with how Nihonjoe would participate in a 'crat chat if he strongly held a view that may not be the correct one."
  3. Oppose #16: "lack of confidence in what his understanding of an administrator's role and possible ability to weigh arguments about administrators. This is an important function in determining close RfAs, and I do not believe Nihonjoe has the right mindset."
  4. Oppose #19: “My oppose is based on experience. Joe says in Q17 that he'd focus on CHU, but I've pretty much never seen him there. I double-checked the stats to confirm my thought and he's edited WP:CHU fewer times than any of his RFBs. Nor have I often seen him at WT:RFA. Sure, he is most definitely active at UAA, I see his name there most of the times I glance at that page. But UAA is somewhat indirectly related to bureaucratship. Joe is an excellent admin, and even a nice guy (I met him at Wikipedia Meetup), but I just haven't seen him hanging around the bureaucrat-related areas enough to make me think, "Hey, he should be one of the 'crats!"”
  5. Oppose #22: "I'm sorry. At RfB, voters need the confidence in the candidates judgment. After seeing the answers provided, I do not have the confidence necessary to support."

  All of the above occurred after Ryan's comments, and none of them even remotely rely on the pedophilia issue. Note that opposes such as #25 or #26, which do not mention anything about the pedophilia issue, may be interpreted to be primarily based on that, so I haven't listed them here.

  I agree that should the sole issue be the pedophilia one, I would lean to promoting as well, for the reasons you brought as well as I implied above (was handled not in error). But it in and of itself is a reason why people may doubt Joe's judgment, and that, together with the other unrelated reasons, indicate that there is concern by the community about Joe. Each camp on their own may not have been significant; the question remains is the combination indicative of significant enough concern about Joe or not. -- Avi (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've spent a long time looking at this, because I agree that it is in the discretionary range, but the level of opposition initially appears to quite significant. There is a common theme in almost all the opposition, that these editors believe that Joe sticks too closely to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and has not applied his own judgement on occasions when they feel he should. The paedophilia issue is the sole example given by many of these editors. A far smaller number of comments in opposition raise a variety of issues which have not been supported by other users. The pattern of edits since Ryan raised the paedophilia issue suggest that editors are sharply split over its significance. Almost all of those already in support have continued to support, with some adding reaffirmations. Since Ryan commented, 24 further editors have opposed, most but not all referencing his comments, while 46 have added their support, many specifically stating that they do not concur with this set of objections, although a few state that they are supporting despite them. Clearly, the opposition is significant, but given the number of editors who have stated that they do not agree with its key points, I'm weakly tending towards feeling that there is enough here to show the expected level of consensus in order to promote. Warofdreams talk 23:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• For the record, it should be noted that after the close, Balloonman indicated that he was going to reinstate his support and Zscout (Oppoose #27) wants it known that he would now rescind his opposition and would opine support as well. -- Avi (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• Recent developments and the soundness of WJBscribe's argument leave me amenable to a pass, though I stand behind everything I said earlier. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The Tyciol issue plays a large role in this RfB. A majority of the oppositional !votes cited it as a deciding factor. Nihonjoe's stance, that in this case ArbCom should have been contacted first and the decision to block come from there, did not involve (in Ryan's words) a "flippant attitude." The stance was shared by a number of people, argued eloquently, centered around due process and referenced substantial justifications (for example 10.2).

In my opinion, this is neither a case of Nihonjoe blindly following arbitrary rules or unable to 'ignore all rules'. Nihonjoe's major concern here involves the potential damage that can be done to someone's reputation when accusing them of participating in pedophilia or endorsing pedophilia. Ryan felt he had reason to bring Tyciol to the attention of ArbCom. However, he could have done so without saying “pro-pedophile activism” on his talk page. Nihonjoe and others argue that it should not be one person's decision to announce this to the community. There is no evidence, they argue, that Tyciol used Wikipedia as a way to engage in pedophilia, or vandalized Wikipedia, or made vulgar, abusive or illegal edits. They are questioning the process and the decision. Both sides of the argument are valid. Neither are flippant.

Nihonjoe engaged in a debate. He did not reverse any action or canvass or (as far as I know) launch insults. I do not see any flaws in judgment or outrageous claims or positions made in his arguments. I personally don't see any thing here that would contradict the desired characteristics of a bureaucrat. However, my job as a bureaucrat in this matter is to assess consensus. As much as I disagree with the opposition in this matter, I will not negate their opinion, because their opinion is legitimate. I don't see a clear consensus to promote. I am sorry that Nihonjoe has had to suffer through yet another agonizing RfB. Kingturtle (talk) 08:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)