Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Jo-Jo Eumerus

Jo-Jo Eumerus

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

Final (103/29/4); ended 09:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC) - This RfB is closed as unsuccessful. Thank you to the candidate for standing. There was a good amount of support, but just too much well-argued opposition for it to reach consensus Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – I am delighted to present Jo-Jo Eumerus for consideration as a bureaucrat. He has been editing actively and consistently since mid-2015, an admin since mid-2016, and has amassed over 70,000 edits.

Jo-Jo Eumerus is a thoughtful and level-headed admin. His content creation is impressive, and includes several FAs and GAs, primarily in the fields of geology and physical geography. On the administrative side of the project, Jo-Jo Eumerus has distinguished himself in closing deletion discussions, where he can always be relied on to deliver a careful and dispassionate closure to contentious and complex discussions. Jo-Jo Eumerus is a voice of reason at meta-discussions, particularly to do with RfA and administrators.

The recent crat chat does show that new blood in the bureaucrat corps could be a good thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus would very much be "new blood" relative to the other bureaucrats. While an established and very active administrator, he hasn't been around for over a decade or served in other advanced administrative roles. His input to bureaucrat matters would very much offer a needed new perspective. Jo-Jo Eumerus would be an excellent addition to the bureaucrat corps, and I hope you will agree with sentiment. Maxim_(talk) 21:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I hereby accept the nomination. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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: I've been following discussions of how the RfX process operates, including all past and recent bureaucrat discussions. At RfA there is a general principle - last put in that form in a RfC four years ago - that normally a RfA with over 75% support is successful, one with less than 65% is considered unsuccessful (each percentage does not count neutral !voters) and in between there is a so-called "discretionary range". It is not simply a matter of a numerical percentage - especially in "discretionary" cases the arguments laid out by the !voters are of utmost importance. Common aspects that !voters consider are the experience (e.g edit count, the length of one's editing career, work done in areas where one plans to use administrator tools), one's understanding of policies and guidelines (e.g the various deletion-associated policies and notability guidelines, when the candidate plans to work in these areas), one's interaction with others (e.g how one approaches conflicts and disagreements with other editors), what one plans to do with administrator tools and often also content work (standards vary on this one, for example some are satisfied with the creation of a few decent articles, while others want to see some audited content such as a featured article or a good article, and some give it little attention). On the basis of such considerations and others !voters stipulate whether they consider someone's promotion to adminship as beneficial for the project (or not), and it is the task of the bureaucrats to determine from such arguments, the rationales underpinning them and the strength of support (or opposition) whether there is a consensus or not to promote.

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

A: That depends on the details of what "contentious" means, but there are in general two routes. The first and nowadays more usual route is to open up a bureaucrat discussion (or "crat chat") and invite the input of the other bureaucrats as to whether the nomination has a consensus for promotion. Typically the bureaucrat opening the discussion summarizes the state of the nomination, the arguments contained therein and whether they consider the nomination to have a consensus. In such discussions, the other (unrecused; it's expected that bureaucrats who participated in the nomination as !voters recuse both from closing it and from the corresponding bureaucrat chat) bureaucrats will then provide their own analysis and arguments as to whether the nomination should be considered successful or not. There is no written-down procedure on how to close a crat chat but it's been occurring via a headcount of all these who see a consensus/don't see a consensus The second procedure would be to make an assessment of whether the contentious nomination has a consensus (or not) and implement it (by promoting or not promoting) with a summary that describes the state of the nomination (the arguments laid out) and the thought process that led the bureaucrat to come to their conclusion regarding (the absence of) consensus. Really, this summary and thought process can and is usually done also during a bureaucrat chat. Even in dissent, Wikipedians are generally willing to accept decisions that go against their preference providing that their stance was given due consideration, the various viewpoints were fairly considered and the process leading to the decision was understandable to others ("transparent").

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: In my admin career I've closed a number of mostly deletion discussions where the outcome was not unambiguous, and I had the perception that I can come to a fair and acceptable assessment of the consensus in a discussion (or about its absence in a "no consensus" case) by impartially and carefully analyzing and summarizing all the offered arguments and applicable policies/guidelines/customs with a conclusion. I've received a fair amount of positive feedback on such analyses/summaries and on my Wikipedia work in general. Sometimes I get asked why I came to a given conclusion, a clarification of how I came to the conclusion, or someone requests a reconsideration of something I did (I am not just talking about administrator actions; I treat similar requests about non-admin actions such as regular editing the same); in these cases I either explain why I took the given action, or if I feel that it was inappropriate I reverse it. Sometimes I go back and evaluate my past decisions on my own account, to see how they worked out and whether they give advice for future actions. In my opinion, properly handling disagreements - including changing one's own stance when it's warranted to do so - is a key skill on any kind of collaborative project such as Wikipedia, as you are working with many other people who will not always agree with you, and there are many ways collaboration can end badly from poor handling of disagreement. Listening to others is essential especially (but not exclusively!) when you are an admin or bureaucrat working on the basis of consensus rather than one's own preference. Now when editing I am generally working on my own but I have also worked in collaborations with other editors, mainly in the ambit of featured content work.

Additional question from Deryck Chan

4. What additional skills and experience do you think you will bring to the team of bureaucrats that make you a net positive in addition to the current bureaucrats and the other two candidates presented this week?

A: Experience wise, the most important trait is probably that I come from a more recent wiki-generation. Depending on how you define "active" I did became active either in 2012 or 2015, while most current bureaucrats have joined long before that and often were already bureaucrats or admins by then. There are differences in perspective between people who were around in old times and those who joined up when Wikipedia had become more important and mature, for example in terms of handling concerns about bureaucratization (in the sense of Wikipedia procedures, not the bureaucrat user group) or the handling of new users when it becomes an issue in the RfX. Skills wise, I can carry out detailed summaries of the arguments presented, which can be helpful at determining the existence of consensus when the numbers don't say it all ... and most (not all, though) tough/contentious bureaucrat decisions are these where the numbers don't clearly indicate a consensus or its absence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

5. Do you think this question "Have you edited under previous account" asked in several RFA as it appears by some editors as it appears to than that the candidate fails WP:DUCK is appropriate in the context of this Wikipedia:Clean start#Requests for adminship says candidates are not obliged to publicly disclose previous accounts.Do you think Candidates should disclose whether they had a previous account in a RFA (without the naming the account).Particurly for those making there clean start after conflict rather than privacy reasons.

A: Regarding that question, I would consider it an appropriate question. Yes, it's not technically obligatory to answer it or to publicly disclose the answer (the page notes that a private disclosure to ArbCom is possible) but in the past we've had issues with questionable clean starts and coming clean about previous accounts is more honest and can prevent a lot of conflict that could ensue if a previous account was revealed after the RfX. Whether and how to answer it is of course up to the candidate. Regarding "do you think", in the name of honesty I would recommend a full disclosure especially in questionable cases; a clean start after a conflict is likely to be contentious when it gives the appearance of avoiding scrutiny. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

6. Do Crats have the right to use there discretion rather WP:IAR in particular in resysoppings editors without the 24 hour wait or any discussion.

A: I am a little unsure about what you asked here, but if you are asking about IAR in general I think it needs to be applied very sparingly in bureaucrat matters. People are not infallible and overturning or reviewing a bureaucrat action is much harder than, say, a page deletion. And the action can have large ramifications on e.g future deletions. The only case I can think of is when a bureaucrat is experimenting their admin rights by removing or readding them to their own bureaucrat account, although there probably are other scenarios. On the waiting period and discussion, I don't really see a situation where it would be necessary to skip them in order to improve the encyclopedia and it doesn't seem like these requirements so far have caused serious issues solely by existing, either. So I wouldn't do it except in unusual cases (IAR is to a large degree meant to cover unexpected situations, so I wouldn't categorically rule one out). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Barkeep49

7. What do you make of the overlap in membership between Arbitrators and Bureaucrats? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A: Well, there is only a limited amount of people who are willing to seek such responsibilities and have the skill and experience to be entrusted with them, so it's both to be expected and not necessarily a bad thing given that the shared experience can be useful in some situations. Now in my personal opinion arb and crat are two fairly distinct responsibilities (mainly that arbs work as a collective and on the basis of their interpretation of a situation, crats work mostly on their own but they are expected to scrupulously stick to community consensus rather than "arbitrating") and I've seen problems with e.g arbs who are bureaucrats being asked to recuse in arb case requests that dealt with the outcome of the bureaucrat action, or controversial arbcom-mandated desysops where having the bureaucrats act as a sanity check was useful. So I'd probably recommend some separation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

8. Please explain what other functions besides Crat Chats on RFA candidates you see bureaucrats having. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A: Aside from the obvious (assessing RfXes that either have a clear consensus or have a clear lack of consensus and implementing the conclusion), bureaucrats also have the responsibility of enacting desysops and resysops, apply and remove the bot and interface administrator user rights, assessing whether an application for Bot Approval Groups membership has consensus in favour of granting and clerking RfX pages. If you mean hypothetical future roles: Over the years there have been proposals to create community-based deadminship processes, and some proposals included giving bureaucrats additional roles. As for whether they should get them (or any other additional responsibility in some other context), I think I'd need to see a concrete proposal to comment on it; my impression is that bureaucrats have often been wary of having their role expanded to take on responsibilities it didn't have when they applied for RfB as their skill in such an expanded role was not scrutinized when they received crat responsibilities. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from QEDK

9. Do you believe trendlines should be used as an effective way of measuring consensus in RfAs? If yes, why, if not, why not?

A: Sometimes. Even with many !voters, RfX pages are not so large and last not so long that trendlines cannot arise by mere coincidence (e.g if a few supporters find the RfA at the last day) so on their own they are not very indicative. Plus there is a concern flagged in the Money emoji crat chat that such trend lines may either be tactical voting, or that bureaucrats factoring them in might encourage tactical voting. Sometimes trends arise due to new revelations, e.g when someone discovers a past contentious edit by the candidate. In these cases one typically sees a clear change-point and often also vote switching. These trends can be an useful gauge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10. As a crat, how would you have assessed Money emoji's RfA in the crat chat?

A: Recusal in both, since I am support #123 on that RfA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: What does "in both" mean here? --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was just bad wording - I would neither close the RfA nor partake in the crat chat except to document my recusal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up question

10.1 This one is due to a failure to clarify the question beforehand on my part (your answer is technically correct, ofcourse). I wanted to seek your assessment of Money emoji's RfA as an example of how you'd practically approach contentious RfAs, so the same question, but hypothetically considering you had not participated in the RfA.

A. Well, in that case I see that with 153support/66oppose we are in the middle of the range where bureaucrat discretion is usually applied, so to a bureaucrat discussion it would go. From an analysis of all the arguments presented, there are legitimate arguments both in favour of promotion and against it, and rebuttals too - for example, on whether copyright clerking requires admin tools, maturity and whether an outburst over a year ago are indicative of immaturity, and the ever-contentious content creation aspect and whether the content contributions have been oversold. I see a trend downwards in the support percentage over time, but there is not much vote switching or reconsideration going on (in fact, I am seeing lots of supporters reaffirming their prior stance) so I wouldn't attach that much importance to it. Going by strength of argument, a lot appears to be predicated on a retirement message that was posted over a year ago and there has never been a strong consensus that content creation is a requirement for adminship and these point tilt this towards "yes, there is consensus". Nevertheless I don't think I see a clear consensus here; yes there is lots of support but also lots of opposition, and while in other places a 2-1 ratio would be considered a clear consensus this is not how RfA currently operates. I agree incidentally that this is a very marginal RfA, and that neither a "consensus" nor a "no consensus" conclusion would be blatantly wrong. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11. Can you give some examples where you have closed contentious requests for comments in a panel or by yourself? If you don't have or recall any such RfCs, other contentious discussions with formal closure are also acceptable.

A: I believe the most consequential discussion in my wiki-career I've closed is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump, given its effects on the widely-read main biography (that AFD has been cited several times during discussions at Talk:Donald Trump).

Additional question from Levivich

12. How would you !vote in a crat chat about the following hypothetical RFA:

200 !voters total
130 support !votes
1. 20 "per nom"
2. 20 "no concerns", "no big deal", "yes please", "easy support", or similar
3. 20 "strong support" with a detailed rationale
4. 20 re-affirming support after reviewing opposes
5. 20 who changed from oppose to support in response to answers to questions
6. 20 "weak support" agreeing with one or more oppose rationales
7. 6 "per others", evenly split amongst the above
8. 4 just a signature
70 oppose !votes
1. 20 citing lack of content creation
2. 20 citing a 3RR block from one year ago
3. 10 citing an interpretation of the candidate's username
4. 10 switching from support to oppose in response to other opposes
5. 8 "per others", evenly split amongst the above
6. 2 votes from accounts with 11 edits (not blocked)

A: Sorry, just saw this one. That's at the lower side of the present-day discretionary range, so it would go to a bureaucrat chat most likely but the normal assumption would be that such a RfA is closed as "no consensus" unless the support case is singularly compelling or the oppose case singularly poor. Strength of argument is difficult to gauge from a summary, but judging by the number of weak supports, strong supports and vote changes in both directions it looks like there are strong arguments on both sides. I think I would be considering this a no consensus case; yes 130 supports are a lot but so are 70 opposes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Can I Log In

13. Stewards. It's a global Wikipedia position. They typically only intervene in emergencies such as abuse of power by a bureaucrat. Other than emergencies, when do you think stewards should intervene in place of a bureaucrat. For example, a complete absence of bureaucrat when they are needed. Can I Log In (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A: I can't really think of many instances. In general, established practice for Wikimedia stewards is that they do not apply their expanded access in a local project unless there is nobody on that local project who can do it or there is an emergency situation. From reading the steward discussions on Meta it seems like this principle is held to pretty stringently, and I think it's generally a good approach - there are many hundreds of projects in the Wikimedia family, all with their own particular idiosyncrasies and cultural conventions which would be easy to get wrong. So the only situation outside of an emergency I can see is when all bureaucrats have recused on a matter or are unavailable for some reason, but I don't think such a thing has ever happened on enwiki, certainly not in recent times. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Links for Jo-Jo Eumerus: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Edit summary usage for Jo-Jo Eumerus can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Support

Support An awesome administrator. All the way, you've my support. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 09:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support- no concerns here. Reyk _YO! 09:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support They’ll do fine. I recall giving one of their FACs a damn good kicking and they responded in a very Wikipedian manner. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Definitely. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 10:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – shows a solid understanding of policy as well as a lot of common sense. Sensible replies to questions, and I agree with the nominating statement. --bonadea contributions talk 10:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no issues, sensible, calm, level headed and a good understanding of policy. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reaffirming support. We need a diverse corpus of crats who are able to work as a team to assess difficult situations with diverting views. Opposing over that seems wide of the mark to me. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per nom. Maxim_(talk) 10:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, strong content creator. GregJackP Boomer! 11:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why not. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per nom. SQL ^{Query me!} 12:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No compelling reason not to. Money emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 12:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - In the recent AfD/DRV on Race and intelligence showed willingness to help out in a careful and professional manner in a very difficult situation with a highly contentious article; does not shy away from challenges. NightHeron (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good and helpful admin. Will make a good bureaucrat. PI Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 13:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dede2008 (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good and level-headed admin, great judgment with consensus as far as I can tell, and I find the oppose rationale that there's too many bureaucrats to be patently ludicrous. The purpose of RfB (and RfA, for that matter) is to determine if the user can be trusted with the toolkit through their actions. A rationale such as "Too many 'crats" does not, in any way, consider whether the user is trustworthy to use the tools without issue, and essentially amounts to a boilerplate rationale, in my view. OhKayeSierra (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Something, something, WP:NOBIGDEAL... Steel1943 (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I see no reason not to, disregarding the rationale of "we have too many crats already", which I personally feel is irrelevant to JJE's ability to do the job. epicgenius (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Enthusiastic Support For the same reasons I outlined in SilkTork's RfB nomination, Jo-Jo Eumerus is, unquestionably, one of our most impartial and objective administrators who is incredibly adept at assessing consensus, as demonstrated in The Simpsons portal namespace MfD discussion and the second AfD for Jo-Ann Roberts. We want and need impartiality and objectivity in our bureaucrats and we need more bureaucrats, so there is simply no reason not to. In reference to a couple of the procedural opposes that we only need two more bureaucrats, we're on pace to lose between 2-5 bureaucrats due to inactivity, so when you net those future bureaucrat losses out, even if we gain SilkTork and WeSpielChequers, we haven't gained any new bureaucrats. Doug Mehus T·C 14:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reaffirming my support, which is still enthusiastic support, for Jo-Jo mainly per Lev's reaffirmation where he said, "Some of the opposes boil down to "Jo-Jo weighs !votes in AFDs but shouldn't weigh !votes in RFAs". Well, sorry, we had an RFC about this not too long ago," and because, also like Lev who writes, "You're going to oppose over one close you disagree with? Come on," I'm not persuaded on the basis of one controversial discussion, which, I should add, was only in draft form and it's worth noting this would not have been the final outcome as Jo-Jo was to be only one member on the blue-ribbon committee. My understanding of such panel closes is that each panel member presents their interpretation of the arguments presented, including their weighting of the arguments, and then each panel member weighs each's interpretation, refuting points that are in error. It might also be helpful to further my interpretation of Jo-Jo's close in the first of my above-referenced examples in order to demonstrate they've got the demonstrated ability to close close closes. Though, as nominator of the Portal:The Simpsons MfD discussion, I felt the "delete" argument had the stronger argument, a "no consensus" outcome was entirely the reasonable close, particularly since Jo-Jo even notes the apparent strength and slight edge over the "keep" arguments in terms of a strict nosecount, but assessing consensus is not simply about counting !vote icons, it's about weighing the arguments. Jo-Jo considered the scope of WP:ATD, noted the point(s) on which the "delete" camp's argument was unrefuted, in whole or in part, by the "keep" camp and, likewise, where the "keep" camp's concerns were not completely addressed by the "delete" camp. In short, the close was accurate and accurately closed by an administrator per WP:BADNAC given the closeness of the arguments, and it would've likely been a bad super vote to have been closed as anything but "no consensus." So, give them the screwdriver as it will not be misused Doug M. T·C 11:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely worthy of being a bureaucrat. Quahog (talk • contribs) 14:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support recent RfA illustrated the need for more bureaucrats. Nothing that the opposers have said would make me thing this person is unqualified. --rogerd (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've reviewed Jo-Jo's articles many times and have been impressed by their common sense and level head. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Doug Mehus's comment. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 14:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Easy support. Levivich (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reaffirming my support. Some of the opposes boil down to "Jo-Jo weighs !votes in AFDs but shouldn't weigh !votes in RFAs". Well, sorry, we had an RFC about this not too long ago, and while I thought RFA should be a straight vote, the community said it's still NOTAVOTE. Weighing consensus is what crats are supposed to do, per the community, recently. Saying the Jo-Jo isn't qualified because he weighs consensus doesn't make sense. Just as little sense as opposing because we have "too many" crats. I agree a glance at the RFB chart disproves that one. Finally, I am not persuaded by the opposers who are opposing because of Jo-Jo's draft Race and intelligence AFD close. You're going to oppose over one close you disagree with? Come on. – Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Truly one of the best editors on the project. Understands how the whole thing works, has created much content, and knows where the bones are buried. Lightburst (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Solid editor and administrator. Calm, sensible, doesn't rush in and take sides, but will act in the best interests of the encyclopaedia - and that's the most that can be hoped of anyone. - SchroCat (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Nightheron. ミラ P 16:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Competent and sensible. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The only reason to have bureaucrats at all, really, at this point is to close contentions RfA's. The contributions to the Race and Intelligence mess that JJE made show clearly that they are highly experienced and professional in assessing consensus in contentious discussions. They have clearly demonstrated competence and qualification for the right they are requesting. Whether that right needs to be given to anyone is not a question for an individual RfB. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great choice to become a bureaucrat. Abzeronow (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Level headed and honourable. Clearly has the best interests of the project in mind. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support will be a net-positive. Also, the idea that keeping the 'crat role super exclusive just because there isn't a perceived "need" for 'crats is silly. More level-headed voices in the 'crat role can only help the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support while I disagreed with the candidate's stance regarding the AfD mentioned in the first oppose, I will not oppose this candidate over a lone AfD. This is a trusted user who is not likely to abuse crat status. I am unsympathetic to the argument that a crat promotion constitutes the loss of an admin, for the crat workload is very light. If we can trust the candidate to make good decisions when closing RfA, we should promote them. If we end up with a lot of crats, who cares? Why is that a problem? This recent series of RfBs is long overdue and I hope there will be more. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Lepricavark: net positive. Puddleglum ^2.0 17:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Per above. A no-brainer IMO. Aloha27 talk 18:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support one of the opposers says "I don’t want someone with experience closing discussions". I think these are exactly the people we do want for the bureaucrat role. Helping to close RfAs in the discretionary range is now the main nontrivial bureaucrat task, and experience closing other contentious discussions is good preparation for that. Hut 8.5 19:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - seems like a reasonable request to me. NomadicNom (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no concerns. Giant Snowman 19:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support No concerns. Oddly, it is the long-serving bureaucrats who seem to go off the rails, not the newly-minted ones. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support No concerns. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support experienced sysop who seems well suited to the role. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with the editors opposing below. I don't think an RfX nomination should be used as a proxy in the community disagreement on the vote/not vote issue. I think Jo-Jo's ability as a closer is the exact attribute we should be seeking in a crat, and I believe they will do a good job in this role. Specifically, I believe that Jo-Jo will follow and implement policies as written; for better or worse that means closing RfXs as discussions not as votes. For that reason I see no logic as to why Jo-Jos ability to close discussions in line with policy should disqualify them from being a bureaucrat. If RfX were to become a vote, I would maybe think differently, but it is not a vote despite the opinions of some editors in the oppose section. There are limited abilities for crats, and it may be worthwhile to hand most of these tasks off to stewards, but this is not the venue to evaluate that. Until we no longer need bureaucrats or the RfX policy changes, candidates who are qualified for the role should not be obstructed because of philosophical disagreements on the office they are seeking or policies they must apply. I support this request. — Wug·a·po·des 22:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – RfA is not now, nor has it ever been, just a vote. In fact, for the longest time, people used to refer to it as "!vote" to distinguish it from a regular straw poll. Bureaucrats are tasked with determining consensus: "does the community trust this user with the administrative toolset?" That involves weighing arguments, reviewing evidence, and coming to a decision. Jo-Jo Eumerus gets this. He has nearly four years of experience as an administrator, and to the best of my knowledge, he's done a great job. He is plenty competent enough to handle bureaucratship. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It seems quite a few of the crats are not very active, so new ones are always welcome and Jo-Jo Eumerus is well qualified. P-K3 (talk) 00:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, has a good amount of experience with the type of contentious closes that seem to be the main workload of a Bureaucrat, nothing in the opposes strikes me as disqualifying. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? Also noting that the opposes thus far are comedically unconvincing. -FASTILY 01:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, seems fine. -- Visviva (talk) 03:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Dmehus. 1.02 editor (T/C) 03:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the above commenters, especially Maxim, OhKayeSierra, Doug Mehus, Wug·a·po·des and Kurtis. As long as Wikipedia has bureaucrats and they have some functions, I cannot accept the proposition that we should not have any more because they aren't needed or aren't needed much. Also, given the importance of crat chats to determine consensus in close RfAs, I would rather see more than just a few crats add to the discussion and make a decision. Some current bureaucrats don't appear at all for these important discussions. I also can not accept that a candidate should be opposed based on a differences of opinion on philosophy, a reasonable difference of opinion on interpretation of a difficult policy, a difference on an AfD or an edit especially if it is ultimately correctable, and other minor problems with one or a few edits when the overall record and demeanor is good, probably excellent. I do not mind longer explanations in answers in these settings. I see that as an effort to cover all the details, which can be important and can lead to criticism if not opposition if an important or convincing detail is left out. The promotion of three administrators to bureaucrats at this time simply replaces the net loss of three from last year. With all of the praise and examples of Jo-Jo Eumerus's work noted above, and his excellent record, I believe he should be promoted to bureaucrat. Donner60 (talk) 05:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Appears to have the skills and temperament suitable for the function. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I respect JJE's judgement. --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not terribly convinced we need more crats (and not a huge fan of crat chats), but that's not a good argument against a good candidate. —Kusma (t·c) 10:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Don't see any issues here and some of the opposes are weak (or worse). Black Kite (talk) 11:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've seen Jo-Jo Eumerus around quite a lot and I believe he will be a great bureaucrat! Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 12:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've interacted with Jo-Jo a few times and seen them to be a quality Wikipedian who I think is well suited for this role. I am deeply unconvinced by the comments in opposition below - as I see at the recent, controversial AfD many of them are referencing, Jo-Jo has been doing their best to address the issue in a fair and reasonable manner. I was impressed by the long proposed draft deletion statement one opposer linked for its effective summary of what was an highly contentious and fairly heated debate among a large group of Wikipedians. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Answers are nuanced, explanatory and analytical, all requirements for a crat. But to be blunt, their answer to Q12 really warrants more, the overall assessment might be OK, but the nuance isn't coming through. Excellent temperament and track record as an admin nonetheless and the opposition might want to read WJBscribe's comment at SilkTork's RfB. --qedk (t 桜 c) 22:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am reaffirming my vote to highlight that fact that despite the opposition, I have no doubt JJE will be a good addition to the crat-corps given their predisposition towards reading consensus. I would also like to state that it is my viewpoint that this RfB should receive a crat chat (if the need arises) at the very least, it only makes sense given the significant support received and to enable a proper review of consensus instead of an unilateral close. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Support for a good admin with good judgment. To draw a line in the sand and say "no more 'crats" is, IMO, silly. Miniapolis 22:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, JJE is competent and levelheaded, and I believe will make an excellent crat. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have been impressed with JJE's experience as an admin. Reywas92^Talk 06:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Wikipedia needs more Bureaucrats. I can't see the candidate doing much harm in that capacity. The 'crat mandate is extremely limited, it's not like admins who have hundreds of different jobs to do - and get right . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - 100% without reservation or hesitation. One of our best admins who has consistently shown good judgement. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 08:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - sensible and on-the-ball. Also, some of those "oppose" are excellent reasons to support - David Gerard (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good to me. Not a "hat collection" thing - I'm appalled to learn that most of the bureaucrats have been in the post for over a decade, and that three haven't edited yet this year. Those are clear signs that fresh eyes are needed, as part of succession. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Oh totally! Jo-Jo would bring a much needed unique experience to Crat-chats. It will be good having them around there, and they have solid judgement. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It appears that the opposes largely have to do with concerns about the concept of bureaucrats, and that is a policy issue, not a reason to oppose a specific admin-for-bureaucrat. I thought that the candidate showed judgment and common sense in closing contentious portal deletion discussions, and a good admin may be a good crat (if we need crats, which isn't the issue). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - qualified candidate. The most recent crat chat proves this position is still needed. I don't want a bunch of mostly out-of-touch Wikipedians popping in to make judgement calls on close RFAs. ZettaComposer (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has understanding of the procedures and policies as an admin, and how bureacrats work. Can I Log In (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The candidate has a lot of experience as an admin, and will be a good bureaucrat. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 18:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am confident that Jo-Jo possesses the qualities that are desirable in 'crats. A9 is exactly the kind of reasoning that I would hope for from someone seeking this role. I believe that the so-called "rambling circumlocution" is to be expected when confronted with vague hypotheticals (GIGO). 3.5+ years as admin is sufficient experience to move up to the next level. - MrX 🖋
Support I don't have any issues, and the opposes are not convincing. We need more bureaucrats anyway. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I highly doubt Jo-Jo Eumerus will misuse the tools Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tough one. I see a lot of the validity in the oppose rationales. SMcClandlish in particular demonstrates uncratlyness. Generally I prefer folk who are openly (if moderately) partisan. But for a crat it's preferable to have someone who's above the fractional fray, who fairly assesses consensus for the whole community. Still, probably the candidate will get better at this, if they get the crat hat. After sleeping on it, landing in support due to Maxim's point about the need for new blood. Regardless of the "analyses" pumped out by the OurWorldInData / Factfullness crowd, the Anglosphere's much more partisan, less temperate & emotionally gentle than it was a few decades back. I wonder if it's even possible to make classic crats anymore. So may be wisest to elevate some of the best young admins, even if they don't perfectly fit the mould. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, opposes are illogical in my view. Fish+Karate 09:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support for sure! Cabayi (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, he'll do fine as a 'crat. BEANS X3 (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, we do need more, and while some opposes may have a point, he will be fine. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no obvious issues. Deb (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Have certainly seen the most excellent of work at closing/relisting AfD's and at times when I've challenged clousres/relists AfD's. I note the concerns in the opposes, and while I am not best experienced to analyze the weight of the opposes I am on balance minded to support. (Djm-leighpark) Djm-mobile (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Trustworthy admin; good answers to questions. Deryck C. 17:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DannyS712 (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seen a lot of their closes at AfD and is a very thoughtful and percise editor; also willing to hear input/listen to other views. Having "too many crats" is a high quality problem in my view and should be welcomed (only that it would also occur in the admin corps); respecting TB's comments below, however, I think that Jo-Jo's analytical style will add to the diversity of input in crat chats rather than hinder or detract from them (and wishing that TB would also nominate himself as well). Britishfinance (talk) 10:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – sgeureka ^t•c 16:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Calm, collaborative and receptive to critique, definitely feel this will be a good fit.--MONGO (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see no valid reason to oppose. Also, I know there's some debate over this, but I think more bureaucrats wouldn't hurt if there's literally a dozen and a half of them... King of Scorpions 17:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good admin, no reason to expect less after assuming this new responsibility. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JBL (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have no questions about his judgement. I have read the oppose votes below, especially the well presented argument by Tony, but I don't find the qualities he objects as an impediment, rather I see it as a strength that someone is will to take careful consideration of a discussion and isn't just a blind rubber stamp; if we just wanted someone to count votes and flip a switch, a bot could do that. We promote people to advanced permissions based on their sound judgement. I have no doubt that Jo Jo has that in spades. --Jayron 32 13:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good admin, no concerns as a 'crat. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The candidate seems to qualify, so I shall place my name in this column. Unlike other recent RfB's, however, this one seems to have a less apparent consensus so I am going to both !vote and address the two main reasons for oppose and why I think they are of lesser weight: Firstly, "We do not need more 'crats, as we have sufficient for the actions they do presently" - in 5, 10, or 27 years and a weeks time we are not going to have the services of the 'crats existing at the turn of this year. It is pretty shortsighted to NOW reduce the number of effective 'crats THEN by not promoting suitable candidates when they stand. While 'crat burnout may not exist, mortality does. Secondly, the notion that they may bring a slightly different viewpoint to bear in cratchats... why would anyone think that this could be anything but a good thing? Judging consensus is still a human skill by which an individual takes their understanding of the criteria and applies them - having the rest of those with that role sharing exactly the same interpretation results in an echo chamber. This makes the cratchat simply a reaffirmation. A very slightly different viewpoint will allow others to weigh their own judgement. Thirdly, those opposes based on an individual instance where they disagree with the conclusion in one matter have no weight at all in my mind. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No point writing an extended rationale when LessHeard vanU has already made it immediately above. This isn't an appointment to the Wikipedia Council of Cardinals; in the absence of any opposition rationale better than "but he might not agree with me on something!", I'll support anyone who wants the job. I don't for one instant believe that JJE is going to go rogue and start issuing unwarranted bot approvals or desysopping admins to whom he's taken a dislike (the only ways in which it's even technically possible to abuse the crat toolset), and I find the "but he might disagree with some of the other crats" opposes baffling—if a decision is so borderline that it needs to be discussed at length, we want input from people with differing views. ‑ Iridescent 17:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Experienced, dedicated administrator who is qualified for this position. I don't think we are in any danger of having "too many" bureaucrats any time soon, nor do I think 'cratship would take much time away from the other administrative work the candidate would continue to perform. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Minorax (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support right now at the time I made this edit, you are at 78%, so here, have my support so you can pass, every net positive for Wikimedia Projects should be supported, and you do deserve one.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 17:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support would be net-positive as a crat in my opinion. --Kostas20142 (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Support I support Jo-Jo Eumerus Articute (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Iridescent above Joseywales1961 (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
support crats are not paid monetarily by WMF. Technically speaking, the user level doesnt utilise/take up server resources. Does getting promoted as a crat hamper the performance of the admin as an admin? No. Like other people said: there is not much work for the crats. I dont see any problem with this candidate getting promoted to a crat, or any worthy candidate getting promoted as a crat. No logical reason to oppose. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have had many good interactions and seen a lot of thier closes, especially when Jo-Jo helps out at TfD when there's a backlogged. They have always been well thought through and he is as have been shown in the opposition he is good at making non-predjudicial supervotes when it will help resolve the discussion. I take this not as a negative as some opposers did but as a very good attribute which shows experience and competence in closing disscussions in a way that makes everyone happy with the end result without requireing endless time consuming discussions. I also don't find opposition based solely on us already having enough crats very weak and honestly bordering on unintentional subversion of consensus since only about a quarter of editors could effectivley sink all future crat nominations while a proper change in our crat policy would require a significantly stronger consensus. The current consensus is that we should have crats and as long as that's the case we should give the role to the most trusted admins we have such as Jo-Jo. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support No concerns. That said I do agree with some comments below to the effect that we really aren't shorthanded crats. I'm more interested in and encouraged by the recent uptick in RfAs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Last minute support here as I've been thinking about the opposes. I've appreciated Jo-Jo's desire to articulate the rational behind AfD closes (and willingness to try to work to close difficult discussions). --Enos733 (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I always think we need more 'crats. Let's go for it. -- œ^™ 06:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I was being petty, so neutral or disregard or whatever. Doesn't seem like I should be doing a bunch of sentence striking, but you get the idea.Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)"'X' is a POVFORK of 'History of X' So Delete" is something Jo agreed with. Seems so clear to me that I must Oppose. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peregrine Fisher. Could you help others understand your !vote by explaining it, please? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dweller: I suspect that PF is referring to this recent hot potato at AFD/DRV. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Jo was (is?) going to enforce an AfD close where the closer said "X" was a POVFORK of "The History of X". The only reason to make that decision would be to ignore NOTCENSORED. I always thought NOTCENSORED was bedrock, so I vote that way. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the notion that the subject of "race and intelligence" is not in itself encyclopedic, but we should only cover meta topics around it, such as the history of people discussing that concept, could be argued. And many editors did argue that in the AFD. If twenty editors had made that argument and two opposed, then delete would be a correct outcome. My issue with JJE's draft close was not so much the correctness or otherwise of the POVFORK idea, but that they saw a consensus for it that for me just didn't exist in the discussion, based on the numbers and the strength of arguments actually made. — Amakuru (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jo was (is?) going to enforce ... is not a true statement. JJ wasn’t/isn’t going to enforce anything. Just so everyone else knows, what Peregrine has a problem with is that JJ drafted a “delete” close in an AFD where Peregrine voted keep. Levivich (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem was that @Peregrine Fisher: felt JJE’s judgement or personal bias is of concern when making important decisions, especially considering that a panel of admins closed the article in question as a clear cut keep case. With this in mind the irony here is that most likely you successfully and unfairly made Pegregrine feel like an idiot or guilty to the point that you got them to change their vote to neutral and that your problem is that they originally voted oppose when you voted support for JJE. The admin panel close clearly confirms that Peregrine’s original concerns were valid. It is not easy to oppose a fellow editor, as we all like to get along and be positive, so pressurising via belittling the viewpoint of opposers should not be done lightly. JJE’s wordy monologue of contradictory proposed delete rational, which is obviously tainted by an emotional connection or personal bias to the subject, demonstrates they struggle to set feelings aside when dealing with difficult decisions; compare JJE’s wordy close to the three admins panel concise close as keep where feelings are set aside and competent closers follow policy free of bias and they reach the opposite decision. The consequences of JJE drawing the wrong conclusion and not following policy as a bureaucrat is much more serious. I mean I can with the best of them be wordy too but I am not running to be a bureaucrat. I am not up to the job as a bureaucrat and neither is JJE, nothing personal and no hard feelings.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per my own and unique interpretation of WP:NOTBURO. There is no obvious, compelling or persuasive need to create more people in a role that has extremely limited scope and has ample members to jump on an RfA within seconds of it expiring. Looks ever so slightly like a hat collecting opportunity, but hey, who am I to say. I've only been here 14 years. Could be a 3rd good Admin. lost, which is where resource is more valuable. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a silly question, but how would this cause an admin to be lost? Are you worried the new candidates will spend more time craternizing than admining? Surely if the role is so limited in scope it won't be much of a drain on their time. Reyk _YO! 12:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lousy time to claim it's "a role that has extremely limited scope and has ample members to jump on an RfA within seconds of it expiring" - have you looked at the last crat-chat? Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of these cratchat-related RfBs suffer from the same fundamental flaw: they are reqesting a user right that will be used at most two times a year. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 12:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see absolutely no need for additional bureaucrats beyond the two that are going to pass right now. I’m also not entirely convinced that JJE’s experience with AfD translates well to RfA: there are actually policies to weigh at an AfD. There are none at an RfX, and to be blunt, crats shouldn’t really be exercising much discretion beyond determining who is a troll that can be ignored as compared to a good faith user who worded something in a poor way. RfA is a vote, plain and simple. I don’t want someone with experience closing discussions. I want someone who I am confident will generally follow the numbers and not make up arguments as to why vote X is stronger than vote Y.
I don’t think JJE will do that in part of because of his answers to the questions, which discusses an analysis of the conversation that reads like an AfD or RfC closure. That’s not really something we want. The community has consistently insisted that RfX are a discussion not a vote, but really, they’re more like the Iowa caucuses: a vote where you try to convince others to agree with you. Crats should generally be less focused on analyzing arguments for policy and more focused on what the will of the community was by setting the guidelines it has set. JJE is a good admin, but I don’t think their experience lends them to being a good crat. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: Not trying to change or badger your !vote, but you proposed and supported an expansion of crat responsibilities in the recent Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2), and here you've written I see absolutely no need for additional bureaucrats beyond the two that are going to pass right now.. How do you reconcile seeking an expansion of crat responsibilities while simultaneously limiting the number of new crats who could attend to those expanded, but still voluntary, responsibilities? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No new responsibilities were added. Crats were charged with fulfilling the community’s resysop policy before, they are still charged with that now. The requirement to think before acting rather than just act is not really much heavy lifting. The wailing and gnashing of teeth by some that bureaucrats are now expected to be mind readers ignores the fact that in the real world, acting and defining what is “reasonable” in a given set of circumstances is the basic legal expectation for living in an English speaking country. All the policy says is that one has to think on Wikipedia using the same standard one is expected to think with in real life. That’s not extra work. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow you really think thinking is not extra work? That is, the difference between an automatic action and a discretionary action does not require extra effort? What if they have to have a discussion? Surely, making a thoughtful, informed, discretionary decision, involves work? I'm honestly very surprised, I've never heard anyone say that before. But OK, that reconciles it, thanks. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The policy requires a basic lightweight reasonableness check that you likely perform thousands of times a day without even thinking about it. What you’re describing is not the policy, nor was it what the community asked in that RfC. If it was, the proposal would not have passed. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The new proposals that you supported and that passed included 1. Before restoring the administrator flag a bureaucrat should be reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor. and 3. Should there be doubt concerning the suitability for restoration of Admin permissions, the restoration shall be delayed until sufficient discussion has occurred and a consensus established through a Crat Chat. Now, a crat chat is definitely extra work, wouldn't you agree? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, as that’s what already happened. This simply says if someone objects one bureaucrat can’t act unilaterally. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
one bureaucrat can't act unilaterally ... meaning we'd need more bureaucrats to weigh in. Y Q.E.D., Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think a pool of 19 are perfectly capable of handling it. I don’t think you’re trying to engage in discussion at this point, so I’m not going to respond further. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm not sure I've seen longer non answers to questions here before. Calidum 14:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would like to see more time as a sysop as well as more use of sysop tools. Sorry. Bobherry Talk Edits 15:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm undecided on this RfB at this moment but how much time as a sysop do you think someone should have? 3.5 years seems like more than enough time to me and I was a little taken aback by this oppose. Primefac had less than two years experience as a sysop when he became the last successful crat and did garner 3 opposes though there seemed to be some sense that 3 years might be long enough which this candidate satisfies. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing as Barkeep49. Jo-Jo's use of the tools can be measured through looking through the logs (namely the deletion, merge, protection, and block logs), but it's also worth noting Jo-Jo's closing of discussions, which often result in "no consensus" and even "keep," can't be easily quantified through the logs. So, I'm not sure how one can say Jo-Jo has no use for the added user right. Doug Mehus T·C 16:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
bit of trvia:one doesnt need to be an admin for becoming a crat. In other words, an editor who hasnt even spent any time as a sys-op at all - can run for RfB. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nor does the MediaWiki software require it, so it is technically possible for a user to be a bureaucrat without also being an admin. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Has it ever happened, though? King of Scorpions 18:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per TonyBallioni. Nihlus 22:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per TonyBallioni, and Peregrine Fisher, and Calidum (and both, as of this writing, neutral comments below). There's way too much of a wading-in-with-personal-interpretation angle here. While that is sometimes of value at RfC and XfD (when one really does have policy firmly on the side of one's interpretation), it is not in 'Cratchat. In the case brought up here, it was executed poorly even at AfD and DRV (and it looks like we're in for another round of it). When there's a supervoting concern already in the air, I think Bureaucratship is off the table. I'm actually quite disturbed by Jo Jo Eumerus having drafted a delete close for something that was super-mega-obviously a no consensus at worst (and arguably "a cut-and-dry keep" as PF put it), but again wanting to be on the admin panel that closes the re-discussion of that same article's fate; that's just asking for a second chance to impose one's already-decided delete course. It's especially weird to me when the actually obvious result we should get to is that article and the one it is supposedly a PoV-fork of – the other way around really – being merged and at the shorter title. This is not rocket science, but JJE isn't getting it right in any way.
See, e.g., the tortured reasoning in the fourth paragraph of this Eumerus text-wall over here. (It's another "long non-answer", as Calidum put it. I have a reputation for wordiness, but day-um. Rambling circumlocution isn't a trait we value in 'Crats.) In that material, JJE should have started and just ended with "On balance, it looks like we have a consensus that the topic is notable and that being contentious isn't a reason for deletion". Aside from being buried in a whole page of dithering and hand-waving, it goes off the rails even before the rest of that sentence is complete, wandering into what should be covered where and whether there should be a central article on the topic. The AfD and DRV had nothing to do with which bits need to be in what article, and the core question was whether there are two "central" articles in competition with each other, not whether there should be one at all. So, I try to picture this kind of faulty reasoning, improper understanding of the issues raised, and willingness to wikilawyer for page after page, being be brought to bear in 'Cratchat, and I just have to say "nope". I generally trust JJE as an admin (perhaps less so now when it comes to non-SNOW deletion rationales and their intersection with NPoV policy, though the CSD track record looks better), but the 'Crat role is a very different set of responsibilities and requires a rather dispassionate approach. We don't need 'Crats often, but we need them a certain way when we need them.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per SMcClandlish. My main concern are the past and very recent examples of WP:SUPERVOTE.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What a shame, three at once, how cool it would have been to support all three. Oh well; per Calidum and SMcCandlish. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 11:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per SMcCandlish. That draft delete was baffling. That’s about as clear of a “no consensus” as there’s ever been. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - JJE is a dedicated Wikipedian doing a great job as an admin, but I feel like a crat should be someone who can wade into contentious areas without generating controversy. As much as I admire their work, I don't feel like JJE has quite the deft touch that I expect of a crat. I think highly of them as a Wikipedian and an admin, but I just can't support here. Sorry. Guettarda (talk) 15:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't really like the idea of opposing someone offering to take on a useful administrative function for the community, but my view of the candidate is somewhat negative. I have come across them at DYK where the accuracy of some of their hooks, or their new or expanded articles, has been questioned (I don't intend to dig out the diffs). I found an unwillingness to see things from other points of view or to compromise, and I do not think they are really of a suitable calibre to become a beaurecrat. TonyBallioni makes a better, policy-based argument! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per all the above, more or less. JJE, I'm an enthusiastic supporter of your work as an admin, but traditionally, cratship is a very different role and requires a different approach. - Dank (push to talk) 16:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - TonyBallioni puts it better than I could. stwalkerster (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll join the chorus of editors lauding JJE's contributions and dedication to the project. Nonetheless, just as adminship is not a editing award, neither is RfB a referendum on an admin's accomplishments. I share the concerns of SMcCandlish and TonyBallioni regarding the manner in which JJE approaches and executes difficult decisions. A bureaucrat should be an outstanding communicator whose diction is clear, unequivocal, and as concise as the situation allows. Some of the candidate's XfD closing rationales are so long-winded that they compromise the reader's understanding of why the decision was actually made. Take Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump: the bulk of that five-paragraph close is simply a rehash of the discussion that took place. The closing admin doesn't need to enumerate each point made by each editor, only to outline how they arrived at their assessment of consensus. And speaking of consensus, I'm not convinced that gauging consensus was actually a primary objective in that close. JJE expresses that they considered closing the AfD as redirect, which would have been an egregious supervote. It's inappropriate, even at XfD, for the closing admin to micro-analyze the debate so intensely that their personal interpretation of individual exchanges(!) between participants is weighed: "I am interpreting Atsme's comments to bd2412 as being about criticism of the diagnoses...".
Another example is the response to QEDK's question on the Money emoji RfA; after reading that passage multiple times, I still have no idea whether the question was answered – I'm leaning toward no. As near as I can tell, the commentary can be boiled down to there were some supports and some opposes, followed by the verbatim conclusion: "neither a 'consensus' nor a 'no consensus' conclusion would be blatantly wrong". It simply sheds no light on JJE's approach to closing edge-case RfAs. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, I have a big problem with the following: "there has never been a strong consensus that content creation is a requirement for adminship and these point tilt this towards 'yes, there is consensus'." You don't need an official RfC mandate in order to take an objection seriously. If a significant portion of editors say a candidate doesn't have enough content creation to be an admin, then there's your consensus that content creation is a valid objection to be taken into account by the closing bureaucrat(s). With apologies for bluntness, it's a bad idea to promote a bureaucrat at risk of putting their thumb on the scale and then cloaking that act, even unintentionally, in diffuse and bombastic prose. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Juliancolton: forgot to mention this bizarre proposed delete close on a highly contentious article by JJE which a panel of admins determined was actually a keep consensus which they then closed it as. So yes, I share some of your same concerns. JJE does lots of great work including admin work, is a valuable editor but not convinced that JJE is ripe for a bureaucrat hat.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, that factored into my initial misgivings about this candidacy, but as it has already been discussed at length I figured I'd focus my commentary on other examples. When I'm forced to oppose a nomination, I try to offer as much new insight as possible. Thanks for the comment. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm not really seeing any actual qualifications for cratship, either in the nomination statement, the support votes, or the answers to questions. In fact, Q4 asks for their "skills and experience" which would make them a good crat, and the only things they can claim to bring to the table is being a "newer" editor compared to most crats, and that they have the ability to "summarize arguments", which is literally a baseline consensus-assessing skill from any admin or non-admin who closes discussions. I'm also concerned with Q2, where they say crat chats are decided by headcount. When the community is so divided on something that a specialized "task force" of pre-appointed users needs to convene in a rare meeting to analyze the consensus, and when one user is going to be analyzing the consensus of this group of users, the one thing I don't want to hear coming out of their mouth is "head count". A crat closing a crat chat needs to have an intellectually elevated, rational, nuanced approach to assessing a consensus, strongly rooted in policy and practice, and using a "head count" as the gold standard for doing so is not only straightforwardly disqualifying, but fails even the most basic standards of any newer non-admin who wants to wade into assessing consensus. Anyone who could even possibly post such a thing without seeing what's obviously wrong with it has no place being a crat, and the lame and meaningless statement that "a recent thread says we need more crats" is not an excuse to shoehorn in candidates that don't actually have any real qualifications to be a crat or any notable need or want to take on the role. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, with sadness because I highly respect JJE's work. Swarm has summarised my concerns quite well, however I believe in personal development and so trust that one day JJE will make a very good crat. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/ As per Swarm, SMcCandlish and TonyBallioni. Loopy30 (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as well. Was originally neutral, and didn't initially feel my comment would be necessary, but I share a similar mindset to Swarm, and SMcCandlish's vote also justifies my position here. I think that Jo-Jo Eumerus is a fine admin, but this is not an RfA. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per comment in neutral section, I don't think that making JJ a bureaucrat would be a net positive for the encyclopedia. b uidhe 02:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like Jo-Jo and think he's a fine admin, much more so than myself. However, I loathe how, more and more, RFA has to be treated like a "Bureaucrat's suggestion box", where we have to guess at what kind of previously-perfectly-valid rationale to write that won't be arbitrarily dismissed if an RFA ends up within a couple percentage points of the nominal discretionary range. AFD closes aren't a good analogy here. DRV closes, however, are: they're mostly discussions among very experienced users, they have a (very few) hard-and-fast rules about closing that really upset people when they're not followed, and a poor close is not, in general, reversible. Taken in that light, a couple of Jo-Jo's DRV closes (Taylor James is the most recent) are too supervotey for my taste. —Cryptic 16:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also moving to oppose, for largely the same reason Juliancolton opposed above. In an AFD, where we have relatively well-settled policy and you might only have two or three experienced editors commenting, it makes sense to look at discussions through the lens of a broader external consensus; but there are no accepted adminship standards with remotely the same support as deletion policy, and RFAs regularly get well over a hundred editors with clue. If these are really discussions and not votes, then the aim of discussing is to convince the other participants, not the closers. When bureaucrats dismiss opposes based on editing experience because "the community has said we need more admins", or based on civility "because the supporters were unconvinced", or - as Jo-Jo wrote he would do in Q10.1 - based on lack of content creation because there isn't "a strong consensus that content creation is a requirement for adminship" (honestly, where do you think such consensuses come from? It's not whoever's been most vocal on WT:RFA for the past couple months), then RFA is no longer a discussion, or even a vote among its participants; it's a vote among bureaucrats. I was initially neutral because, while I didn't think Jo-Jo would make a good crat, I figured he'd at least be better than our current ones. I no longer have such confidence. —Cryptic 03:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong administrator, but I am persuaded by the opposition that the candidate will bring adventurous views to the bureaucrats' mix. AGK ■ 07:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Juliancolton and SMcCandlish. A very solid editor and admin, but these don't make one automatically well suited for bureaucratship.--Staberinde (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – the main thing I want to see in a bureaucrat is the ability to take a long and complicated discussion and distill it down to a clear and simple result. – bradv🍁 23:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Juliancolton. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mild agreement with Cryptic and portions of what TB and JC said. I have additional reservations from some of my own interactions about a tendency toward supervotiness, both from closings and other realms. Some discussions can be a giant mess, and it is sometimes necessary to grapple and wrangle a decision out of them, even if it's no consensus, and I appreciate the difficulty that takes. It's a skill that can be helpful but is only necessary exceptionally rarely and, critically, only because XfDs have multiple possible outcomes. I worry about seeing it RfX, including from some of the above answers. I don't begrudge the wordiness on complex closeness, but do agree that concision is helpful. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - regretfully, as JJE is a thoughtful and experienced admin, I know their heart is in this project, and it's never easy to have to oppose fellow editors when they apply for positions. But I am concerned here largely per the two points Cryptic makes above. Unlike routine admin chores, bureaucratship is almost entirely about reading consensus. As a participant in the recent Race and intelligence DRV, I felt that JJE's preliminary decision (posted here: Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2020 February 12) represented a misreading of the discussion - it looks like a point that would have been well made as a !vote, but not as a close of the discussion that took place. And I would urge JJE to take on board the points raised above, that some of their closes veer too much towards the WP:SUPERVOTE end of the spectrum. And again per Cryptic, I am concerned about the answer to 10.1, which seems to suggest that certain viewpoints should ipso facto be assigned less weight at RFA. In particular, the view that "there has never been a strong consensus that content creation is a requirement for adminship" should not be one that's ever used in an RFA close. For me and many others, content creation in admins is a big issue and, although there may be circumstances where a relative lack of content can be overcome by other considerations (Money emoji was one such, on the borderline), this view should not be downplayed just because some people don't concur with it. As an aside, I don't agree with some of the opposes above, suggesting that RFAs should be evaluated purely on numbers, that definitely isn't the case - there is a role for crats in determining consensus based on discussion and the community has expressly rejected the "purely-a-vote" idea in RFCs before. — Amakuru (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Disagree with the premise that "new blood" will improve outcomes. This role is one which calls for the wisdom of long experience. Jonathunder (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose, I don’t like to discourage well-intended volunteering but the opposers have made a compelling case, especially Juliancolton. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Moved to oppose, comment still stands: I have a very high opinion of this editor based on my interaction with them, but I was not impressed by how they handled the Race and intelligence close. It didn't seem that there was any consensus in that discussion. Bureaucrats must be very careful to avoid even the appearance of WP:SUPERVOTE (I am not saying that is what happened in the Race and intelligence close, but some editors perceived it that way). b uidhe 15:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to oppose. —Cryptic 03:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, leaning support; I am not as familiar with Jo-Jo as I am the other two RfB candidates, but I'm very concerned that much (not all) of the oppose section is copy-and-pasted boilerplate that has nothing to do with this candidate specifically. And I'm especially disturbed that some are attempting to overturn the community's long-standing and repeatedly confirmed sentiment that RfAs are a discussion (and not merely a vote) by attempting to tank individual RfBs. That's not fair to the candidate, and it's not an appropriate use of the RfB process. 28bytes (talk) 15:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, your vote was less contextual than most of the opposition, to be specific, your concern had nothing to do with the candidate and your neutral vote has no weight (as you stated about the opposes) wrt consensus around the candidate. Just my 0.02$. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But it’s also not just a discussion. Probably the most accurate description would be a public vote with a concurrent discussion. The two other RfB candidates clearly understand this and both to one degree or another pay deference to percentage as an indicator of consensus, even within the discretionary zone. This has been a trend in recent crat chats as well, and is a good thing. JJE’s answers suggest they’d approach this more like an AfD, where percentages matter less and arguments more. While the community has been insistent on calling this a discussion, it has also been insistent on maintaining percentages. Focusing too much on the discussion aspect without recognizing in the majority of cases, the numbers matter more, loses sight of that community consensus. Opposing someone because you don’t think they’ll pay enough attention to the numeric guidelines established by the community is fair, just as supporting them because they are good at analyzing discussions is fair: the community’s way of handling consensus at RfA is in tension, and deciding how those discussions are handled is up to bureaucrats. Voting based on how you think the tension should be resolved is appropriate, imo. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to say that, while I disagree pretty strongly with TonyBallioni on what RfA should be like (i.e., I prefer more of a discussion, less of a vote), his ending assessment of the opposes is correct: I expect bureaucrats to do exactly what the community has decided, no more and no less. It's up to us to change policy, expectations, and practice, but until then, crats must abide, even if they personally disagree. Opposes concerned about adherence to the community's guidelines are doing so perfectly in line with the job description of bureaucrats. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A fine sysop, who wades in and makes the difficult calls. We need a dozen more like him. When he picks a side he's almost always on the right one. But... JJE does pick sides. He deserves a truckload of barnstars for doing the job he does, but I'm afraid I think he might be the wrong personality type for a crat.—S Marshall T/C 23:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Clearly Jo Jo is a very good user and admin, and it won't be a travesty if they join the bureaucrat team, but I have a hunch that when two have just been appointed, adding a third into the mix, one a number of users are concerned by, isn't the right decision just yet. Jo Jo's RFB was filed third and last, and I feel like it'd be better to let the others settle in first and see if we even need a third right now. Other users have also raised a number of valid points regarding supervotes. KaisaL (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have only two reasons for staying neutral: 1) I have only "known" Jo-Jo for about three months, and 2) I really really don't think there was enough discussions about just why we need more 'crats and what flavor of more 'crats we need. I am still wondering why crats weigh in on RFAs and then have to recuse; not enough crats, stop voting in RFAs. Nonetheless. My short experience with Jo-Jo has shown me that he is the kind of candidate I would hands-down enthusiastically support if 1) I had a few more months of observing him enough to know he would stand up to other admins when they are wrong, and 2) if I thought we needed more 'crats now. Jo-Jo is not only a content creator supreme, but has demonstrated to me very high bar for integrity. I hope he comes around again for 'crat when it is more clear just what kind of 'crats we need; I am much more comfortable with someone I know has the integrity to swim against the tide than some other admins, and I believe Jo-Jo would when necessary. Just need more time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Sorry if I'm missing something, but what is with all the RfBs recently? Foxnpichu (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent RFA went to a crat chat. The outcome was relatively close for about the first 90% of the time, and then a few late 'crats added their opinions and a decision was made. Multiple people on the crat chat talk page said we needed more crats to avoid a 5-day-long 'crat chat in the future. Primefac (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck to the candidates, of course, but only two (including that which recently sparked these noms) have gone over the 100-hour stretch since 2007—indeed, to put it another way, this was the first to go over 100 hours since 2007. The mean duration of a CratChat is ~46 hours. Less than two days, which is probably comforting for those that see a need for the group's augmentation. ——SN 54129 14:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Thanks for the information. Foxnpichu (talk) 00:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve said something like this on the talk, but I’ll say it here in case this goes to a chat so it’s considered: for everything above RfA or even for global permissions, the size of the group elected is absolutely a valid consideration. As an example, I am strongly of the view that we have too many oversighters and that we should have appointed less in September 2019. I raised this during the consultation and others agreed with it. ArbCom obviously didn’t, but that’s how the process works. Nonetheless, these views were heard and considered as part of that process.
As this applies to the RfB: it is the community who decides via RfB how many bureaucrats it wants. There is no other way to limit it, and having a hard policy wouldn’t allow the community flexibility in case there suddenly becomes a great need for crats (unlikely, but who knows.) The point of view of those in the community who feel limiting the size of a group that doesn’t have much to do anymore and considering that point of view is just as important as the point of view that we need new blood.
Neither view has any basis in any policy whatsoever. Instead they are members of the community expressing their informed views as to how they see this role going forward in what is functionally the only way to express it. Neither point of view should be dismissed as “weak” since valued and experienced community members hold it on both sides. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- While "everyone's opinion is equally valid" is a noble ideal, I personally find analysis of a particular candidacy much more useful in that candidate's RfX than copied-and-pasted "too many administrators currently" type comments that do not make any attempt to assess the individual candidate. 28bytes (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I would add that on the flip side, "we need more 'crats, therefore this person should be a 'crat" is equally as unedifying, albeit less likely to affect the end result since opposes are weighted so much more heavily. 28bytes (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I get your view, but I disagree with it because there is no functional way other than an RfB to limit the number of bureaucrats. If someone thinks that we already have too many and that we shouldn't be expanding it, there's only one place to make that known: an RfB. I don't think any Wikimedia project has a formal policy on max for any role, but seeking to limit user rights above RfA to a reasonable number of people is something that's a topic of conversation on this project and on other projects. Wizardman and Bbb23 both posted at BN recently saying that they both felt that additional bureaucrats would muddy the waters. My personal view is that we should be moving away from crats and getting real RfA reform is going to be difficult when you have inertia caused by a large group of people who, to be honest, don't have much to do but are central to the current system. I'm fine with expanding to fit needs, but overly expanding is not something I personally see as beneficial to the project. Both of these reasons are just as strong as any reason for wanting to create more. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself puzzled at the way TonyBallioni justifies their vote, with a repeated emphasis on a rigid numerical threshold for RfA without any room for interpreting Wikipedia's policies. Airbornemihir (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to a bureaucrat discussion, right? Airbornemihir (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always curious why people who oppose and say "we don't need more 'crats" draw flak while in every RFA there will be multiple supports saying we need more admins. Should we ignore those votes? Calidum 21:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I very much doubt an active administrative corps ten times its current size would ever run out of work. The bureaucrat-specific backlogs, in contrast, are basically nonexistent. There's a lot of support rationales at RFA that could stand to be discounted a whole lot more than the crats have been willing to do, but this isn't one of them. —Cryptic 23:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage participants to reaffirm their votes since a lot of crats take that into account while assessing consensus and to do away with the whole "the people who voted earlier did not know that!" (pure hog-wash, I believe) that comes up occasionally. You can also state your willingness towards a crat chat (this is for the opposition mostly), or not, if that's your viewpoint. That should make things in the crat chat (if need arises) much easier to assess imo. Best, --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful what you wish for. Would you like me to reaffirm my vote? ——SN 54129 11:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Doug M. T·C 12:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above bureaucratship 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.

v t e RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters	XTools Edit summary usage
Analysis	Articles created Non-automated edits BLP edits AfD votes AfD closes
Cross-wiki	CentralAuth Global contributions User rights