Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe


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

Nihonjoe
Final (36/14/4); Scheduled to ended 17:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

- After being here for a while, I've decided I'd like to be able to help out the community a little more. While current discussions seem to be of the opinion that there are only a few active bureaucrats, and that they have no problem keeping up with everything they have to do, a quick glance through WP:CHU tells me that additional bodies helping out would be good (there are currently 36 requests listed there, though a few of them have already been handled). I believe "having bureaucrats handy is a good thing" (to quote Durin over here). I think it's always good to spread the burden, as it were, and I'm willing to help out. I've been a significant contributor so far, and I think I have a lot more to offer the community. Thank you. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 17:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: As it's a self-nom (of course), I accept. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 17:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 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 have read them, and I've been paying close attention to the current discussion regarding Ryulong's RfA. The general consensus seems to be that consensus for promotion is generally reached when a candidate receives at least 75-85% support from those expressing an opinion during the !voting period. This doesn't meant that someone achieving 85% approval is automatically made an admin, neither does it mean that someone who receives 74.99% approval automatically doesn't. Most RfA's have a clear consensus one way or the other, but there are always a few that would be considered "borderline" as it were. I believe that in questionable cases, consensus among bureaucrats should be sought in order to make sure 1) that community consensus is followed, and 2) that the good of the project is protected. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 17:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1a. Following up from above, where'd you get that 85% ceiling from? I understood bureaucrat discretion to end at ~80%.--Kchase T 12:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A. I answer this way down below in my comment on Insanephantom's neutral !vote. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 15:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
 * A. I answered this one above. I believe that in contentious cases, consensus among bureaucrats should be sought in order to make sure 1) that community consensus is followed, and 2) that the good of the project is protected. Any such discussion should be in a location which can be referred to in the future should anyone every have a question on the process that led to the final decision. I believe it is important to consider seriously all opinions expressed on the matter, and make a determination based on that careful consideration. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 17:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
 * A. I believe that anyone looking back through my contributions will see that I have tried to be fair in all cases, even in those instances where I've been accused of siding with one or another side in a dispute. Even in issues where I have a strong opinion, I always try to remember that others may have equally strong opinions on the topic, and I always try to assume good faith unless an editor has clearly shown that they are not acting in good faith. Even in such cases, I try to treat them with respect and maintain "professional courtesy" when dealing with them. I also try to explain policies and guidelines in a non-confrontational manner, and try to help new editors gain a better understanding of how things work here. I'm not perfect, but I do the best I can. I'm always willing to help out if someone has a question. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 17:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on any other forum during the course of nominations and especially when making a decision? And to discuss issues of promotion or non-promotion only with other bureaucrats, in their talk, or at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard where such discussion would be transparent?
 * A. This is a somewhat weasely question, I believe, as it assumes that all circumstances are the same, and that there is no possibility for a situation which would require more discretion. In general, I will only discuss matters in area where transparency is assured. However, as I can not determine what the future may hold, I reserve the right to discuss private issues in more private forums should the need arise. I don't know what those issues might be, and I can not currently conceive of any situation which might call for such private discussion, but I don't want to promise one thing and then run into a situation where I can not honor that promise. For any who may vehemently oppose any possibility of private discussions, please make special note of the bolded part of my response above. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 17:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?
 * A. I regularly visit and participate on WP:RFA (though I haven't always !voted on every RfA), and I will definitely make time for the other two should I become a bureaucrat. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 17:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Peter M Dodge:
 * 1. Acting as a bureaucrat often means making controversial decisions in cases where consensus is not always clear. How do you approach such situations?  How would you address the matter in such a way that all "sides" of the matter feel that they have been considered?  How would you determine consensus in such a matter?
 * A. I think in such cases, the way the final decision statement is worded is very important. It's important to mention each major point raised by each "side", especially those points raised in objection as they are the ones most likely to need addressing and consideration in sticky situations. I think as long as I am respectful of all opinions on the matter, and show that I have carefully considered them (and perhaps discussed them with other bureaucrats, if needed), that while some may not agree with the final decision they will know that they were not simply ignored. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 18:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 2. One of the activities of a bureaucrat is changing usernames upon request. Oftentimes this is a fairly clearcut activity, but sometimes it is not.  Such is the case with username usurpations, when a user requests a change to a name that is already taken, but has made few or no edits.  Assume for a moment that you must take action on such a request - how would you handle such a situation?
 * A. I would first carefully review Usurpation to make sure I was current on everything regarding the policy. After reviewing the policy and any recent discussions on the issue, I would then consider the merits of the request and if they met the requirements for usurping the username of another editor. If they did, then the request would be granted. If not, it would be declined. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 18:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Question from :
 * 3. Have you ever nominated someone to be an administrator? If so, who and why, and if not why not?
 * A. No, though I have a few people I've thought about nominating. I may even get to nominating them at some point. I just want to make sure I approach them in the right way about it. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 18:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions from MatthewFenton:
 * 4. Do you pledge never to promote a person you are affiliated with or to discuss their RfA with them in a bureaucratic sense? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A. I would never twiddle bits of someone with whom I was closely associated (for instance, anyone in WP:JAPAN). I think it's very important to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. As for discussing things with them, I'm not sure what you mean by "discuss their RfA with them in a bureaucratic sense." Any discussions would be be confined to their RfA or its talk page (I'd make a point of that), and would be there for anyone to see in order to maintain transparency. If the question was one I wasn't comfortable answering, I'd indicate as much instead of answering the question. If it was a question that could be seen as an attempt at influencing the outcome, I'd refer them to another bureaucrat or suggest they post their question on their RfA talk page for someone else to answer. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 18:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions from ReyBrujo:
 * 5. I copy the question I asked Deskana: when I read question 4, I immediately remember Taxman's RfB promise, for which he was bashed and even asked to resign. Now, I am not asking you if you are going to resign for not respecting any of these points, but instead, what would make you resign from your bureaucratship? What would you consider a grave fault to resign, by yourself and with nobody asking you to do so, from your condition? -- ReyBrujo 18:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A. I moved your question down here so it would more easily be seen. I almost didn't notice it. I think my answer to question 4 sufficiently explained that, while I don't currently envision any circumstances where I wouldn't keep discussions in an open location, I reserve the right to make an exception should such a rare situation occur. As for something that would cause me to resign, I'm not sure. I'm not in the habit of doing things that would cause me to resign from any position, and I can't envision any circumstances here where I'd do something that would require or suggest that I should. However, if for some unknown and unlikely reason I did something that severely damaged the trust given to me, I would certainly seriously consider resignation as an option. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 20:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Question from Just H
 * 6. Can you show me an example of a consensus that had just enough support to make it a consensus, and how could you tell it was a consensus? Just H 02:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Clarification request: For an RfA, or any discussion? ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 08:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Any discussion. Just H 05:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A. I think that in order to achieve consensus, it needs to be clear that the opinion is one way or the other, and there's not generally a "just enough." If it's not clear that the decision is supported or opposed, then it's not a consensus and shouldn't be closed as such. Do you have a specific discussion which meets this criteria which you had in mind when you asked this question? ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 08:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Almost all the ones i've seen. It'd be nice if there was some kind of standard for what a consensus is rather than the Potter Stewart "I know it when I see it" standard that seems to permeate most places on here. Just H 22:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Question from 
 * 7. I also copied this question from Deskana's RfB. I think it would be helpful to understand more of what exactly you intend to do with bureaucrat status. Do you intend to focus on anything in particular? Do you feel that there is a need for more help in requests for changing username or in granting bot status, for example?
 * A. Since there are only three things that bureaucrats do (promote editors and bots, and change usernames), I'd help out there as needed. While right now these areas are under control, I believe it is good to plan ahead for other possibilities where they may not be. I believe that I've established that I am willing to help out pretty much anywhere, and this would allow me to be able to help out in three more ways. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk  to Nihon joe 16:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Question from 
 * 8. Presumably, you're aware of the debate at Wikipedia_talk:Username. I'd like to ask what is your opinion on this subject? I hope this doesn't seem out of place - I consider it pertinent, given your WP:JAPAN involvement, your signature and (crucially, for me) the fact that Bureaucrats deal with user name changes. Thank you. --Dweller 13:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A. It's kind of strange since my username and signature are basically the opposite of what they are discussing there: I have a "standard" username, but my sig uses Japanese in it. I do provide a transliteration for it right next to the Japanese, though. I'm not sure where I fall on this issue as I can see valid concerns on each side. On the one side, as long as the user has Unicode properly enabled on his system, he should be able to view all but the most obscure (in comparison) language scripts. I can view almost all of them as Mac OS X has many of the fonts installed by default. There are a few that I have trouble viewing (go to this page and see how many of the scripts in the "Language (local)" column you can view properly (they don't appear as boxes, questions marks, etc.), but I'm not really concerned about it. If they aren't sure how to type it, the username can always be copied and pasted. So, I guess I lean more toward the "it's not really a big deal" camp, but still understanding that others have concerns. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 04:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * General comments


 * See Nihonjoe's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.



Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion


 * Well, to put it plainly, I can understand many, many oppose opinions, I can even understand the 1FA (although I do not share it), but "I don't like you", "There are too many", "No until we can remove you" and such are absurd comments. Especially the "We/They are enough", that is almost cabal/elite. It would really sad me if the closing bureaucrat considers these arguments seriously. -- ReyBrujo 20:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever, whatever. I've crossed out my valid oppose, so are you happy now? --Majorly (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope the closing bureaucrat will take into account most of the opposers are saying "per Taxman" which isn't an argument for or against. -- Majorly  (o rly?) 13:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's consider that there is also active discussion suggesting that we need more admins. If we need more admins there will (hopefully) be more work on this page soon for new 'crats. IronGargoyle 16:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support &bull; Nihonjoe's always had his head screwed on right as an admin, and his answers to the questions satisfy me that he wouldn't lose any marbles as a Bureaucrat either. Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 18:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong support - Don't trust existing crats. And I trust Nihonjoe. Until I see someone present a VALID REASON why he's not good for crat, he has my unwavering support. -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 22:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong support per Elaragirl. --Majorly (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support-per Peter M Dodge.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 23:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Good admin with clear knowledge of the need to respect community concensus and avoid conflicts of interests. Would make a good 'crat. WJBscribe 02:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per above. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong support. I really don't see why the hell not. The answer to Q1 is very solid and another calm head as bureaucrat could be quite beneficial to the community I think. Grand  master  ka  08:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC}
 * 8) Strong Support &mdash; per, surprisingly, Taxman's comments below. Bureaucrats should be decision makers, and it's time to let additional people into the decision-making process to give a breath of fresh air into the system. Having a small, closely knit group of three active (and outstanding) b-crats means that we need someone (or a few people) there to provide some sort of balancing act in tough situations. Additionally, we need to think forward; if we suddenly find outselves in a need for b-crat activity, we need some fresh users who are already up to speed and experienced. This rambling makes me feel that b-crats should have terms :). &mdash; Deckiller 08:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support A fine candidate.--Osidge 18:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Definitely a fine cantidate. Not like it's a big deal, being a bureaucrat, even though that's what a lot of people make it out to be. Even if we do have enough, what's it going to hurt? Alex43223Talk 04:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support  Buck  ets  ofg  05:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. While it's true that Essjay, Taxman, and Redux are doing an excellent job, I do think Nihonjoe is right that the total number of requests at WP:CHU is going up (even if Taxman is also right below that the closing rate has been fine), so another bureaucrat wouldn't hurt, and he'd be a very good one. Chick Bowen 17:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Moderate Support Good, but not great. Nothing personal though, consensus is an weak spot for Wikipedia and defining consensus is the purpose of a bureaucrat. Nihonjoe did about as good as anybody could. Just H 22:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. I do not agree with Taxman and it's entirely immaterial whether we need more bureaucrats. Smacks of "I'm in and you're not coming in". The current set have made decisions that weren't universally accepted, so maybe they should be keener on fresh blood. Grace Note 05:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well said; I'm glad someone agrees with my statement above. Taxman and the others are doing a solid job, but it is always important to have a fresh gust of wind and a security blanket. &mdash; Deckiller 05:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. A truly dedicated user.   Culv  e  rin  ?   Talk
 * 2) I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate and Deckiller's message! - 14:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Terence Ong 15:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Per Taxman. --Ligulem 16:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Nihonjoe is a truly dedicated admin on Wikipedia, and I feel confident that he will be a great 'crat. I feel the fact that Taxman, Redux and Essjay already cover a great deal of the bureaucratic duties should not be a reason to oppose an RfB. At anytime one of the three could leave the project or stop doing their 'crat and admin chores, and then we'd be shorthanded. I do understand that Taxman feels that Nihonjoe was not "reading the community's needs", but Nihonjoe does feel "having bureaucrats handy is a good thing". If he gets beaten out to promotions and such by the three most active bureaucrats, he can surely spend his time contributing elsewhere, like cleaning up the admin backlogs and such.  Nish kid 64  18:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Weak Support. I don't agree with the idea that the CHU backlog doesn't matter. If a qualified user wants to help out then there is no need to stop him/her. I do have some concerns elsewhere though.  Voice -of- All  18:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I'm unconvinced by the reasoning of oppose votes. Catchpole 22:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support The opposition just doesn't convince me otherwise that he shouldn't be B-crat. Just like Deckiller said, even though the other three are doing a fine job, but Wikipedia needs fresh administration every once and awhile.  Darth  griz 98 23:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support He seems trustworthy per the above statements. Cbrown1023 00:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support I trust this user, I admire that Nihonjoe wants to tackle some bureaucratic backlogs. ~ Arjun  02:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Surplus of crats doesn't sound like a valid reason for opposing.-- Hús  ö  nd  01:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Per Nishkid64 and Darthgriz98. There is only one reason to oppose, and it doesn't even seem like an oppose reason... more like a reason not to support. I've only seen positive things from Nihonjoe and am impressed with the answers to the questions. I think this is a fine time for a new 'crat to step up. Irongargoyle 03:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Stealing Irongargoyle's words, the reasons given to oppose are not reasons to oppose, they are reasons not to support. And Taxman's opposition reads to me "oppose because we're so active we don't need you", which is not exactly convincing.  Proto ::  ►  21:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Moreover, I'm concerned that most of the opposes are "per Taxman", without providing a more valid reason. &mdash; Deckiller 22:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it was because I was too verbose. :) I suppose they found the argument compelling, but I agree it would be better if everyone provided solid reasoning. - Taxman Talk 13:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was specifically avoiding that being the conclusion of my comments. The thrust of the argument is the last sentence and the end of the sentence beginning "So while..." that sums up the previous sentences. On the balancing side, many people feel he's a great candidate, and he did give an impressive answer to question #4, so I'm confident he'll be successful some time in the future if he so chooses. - Taxman Talk 13:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. We need more bureaucrats. Taxman said that RfA's backlog is at its lowest ever; true, but what about when Taxman said "So while Copyright problems has an enormous backlog (and more undiscovered problems), and Category:Wikipedia backlog is of course enormous"? That's what we need more bureaucrats for. That's why I'm supporting. 1ne 22:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support G  e  o . 01:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Even if now we have enough, it's quite likely that some day the amount of crats we currently have won't be. We should have more than enough at all times. Eli Falk 12:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Given the mountains and rivers bureaucandidates have to scale and cross to get promoted the argument of "We don't need you now" is utterly unconvincing and people should focus on Nihonjoe's record and not on the shallow pool of tasks bureaucrats have to tackle right now. Idle crats still make good admins, so there is no reason not to promote them now so we don't have to scramble in case all the current ones go on vacation together. I find the candidacy in good faith and Nihon's record beyond reproach. ~ trialsanderrors 03:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support: Unconvinced by the "don't need" arguments; this user appears to understand consensus well and I see no reason to oppose. Heimstern Läufer 05:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. As one of the editors who I see at work the most often, I am utterly convinced of Nihonjoe's value to the project in any role. Particularly since he has offered his services freely, I know that he will take on the new workload and provide support for the current bureaucrats. Dekimasu 06:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support It seems odd to oppose here because there are plenty of bureaucrats for the workload, when we're screaming out for more candidates for admin because there's too much to do. If he's right, promote him... the way this thing's growing, the workload may follow and I'd rather we're ready. I see no issues raised that lead me to distrust his ability to do the job admirably when called on and there's no reason for him to stop being a great admin just because he has the extra tools. --Dweller 11:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Taxman's argument is well thought out and extremely convincing, however, I am not totally convinced by it. Thus I support this candidate. I think having "backup bcrats" isn't a bad idea, and you seem to know what the job is about. --Deskana (request backup)  13:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support It seems clear that we would trust Nihonjoe and all that and it's crazy to think that we turn away such a valuable volunteer. Wikipedia is growing, and it's good to have support when you need it. I think he'd use his time wisely. -- Ned Scott 20:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * Oppose I'm sorry, I do not see a need for any more bureaucrats at this time. Until there's an easier way to avoid events like yesterday's, I'd rather no more bureaucrats were made, and the current, inactive ones (that is, all except our most active Taxman, Redux and Essjay) were all reconfirmed as trusted by the community. --Majorly (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Except? Either apply the rule for everyone or nobody. -- ReyBrujo 19:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ReyBrujo, please don't start another argument. You know how I feel about the current state of things, from the discussion on WT:RFA. --Majorly (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And Nihonjoe, this has nothing to do with what you'd be like as a bureaucrat. I just don't see a sufficient need for anymore, and until they are more accountable, I doubt I'll be supporting any more RfBs. --Majorly (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose I was avoiding doing this because it may look like a conflict of interest in some way. I'm making my best effort for it not to be, but if anyone does feel it's a conflict of interest, simply ignore me. The reason I've chosen to go out on a limb and oppose is this nomination shows a distinct lack of reading the community's needs and filling them. Lags on RfA promotion and bot flagging are perhaps at their lowest ever. The three of us practically elbow each other out of the way to make promotions. I believe the only reason CHU has a backlog is it provides very little value to the project's main goals. So while Copyright problems has an enormous backlog (and more undiscovered problems), and Category:Wikipedia backlog is of course enormous, the only conclusion I can see left for nominating for bureaucrat at this point is for the status. Especially after the tepid response to Deskana's nomination, who is an otherwise excellent candidate. I would have hoped you'd see the writing on the wall that the low response is not due to him not being a good candidate, just as it wouldn't be for you, but it is due to there being more valuable uses of your skills. Reading the community is critical for the role, and the lack of demonstrating it such as in this nomination is what I feel makes this different from a "we don't need more" !vote. - Taxman Talk 18:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is mostly a comment on the "due to there being more valuable uses of your skills" part. I wasn't planning on decreasing my efforts in other areas that much (if at all) as I agree that being a bureaucrat doesn't require all my attention (at least not in the same way as being an admin does). I would continue working to reduce the backlog (I frequently clear out huge chunks of backlog in CAT:CSD and Articles for deletion/Old, as well as various other things requiring an admin which I happen upon. I'd just like to be able to do more to help the community as I can, and I see this as a logical step toward being able to do that. I really, really like Wikipedia, and I enjoy building and maintaining it. That's my main reason for making this request. I understand that there may not be an immediate need for a new bureaucrat this very instant, but I believe in planning ahead. Anyway, I'm not trying to argue with, but rather making sure my intent is understood. Thanks. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 23:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Taxman's reasoning is convincing. There are enough crats to easily cover RfA and CHU's backup isn't that bad or crucial (and this is speaking as someone who's waiting on a name change). There are certain users I'd support in an RfB, but they're few and far between. I also agree that this is rather poor timing given a the controversy over Ryulong's RfA and Deskana's failing RfB. Still, I think that NihonJoe is an excellent admin and I could see supporting him at some point in the future. SuperMachine 19:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Taxman.--Runcorn 20:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)\
 * 3) Oppose per Taxman. Jonathunder 22:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Taxman. Michael 02:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Taxman. Xoloz 03:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per SuperMachine's comments. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  05:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per Taxman. pschemp | talk 18:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per Taxman. Flyingtoaster1337 05:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose Taxman's put more thought into this than the nominee, although I am concerned about the rate of inactivity amongst present bureaucrats. Rama's arrow  16:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose; while I disagree that bureaucrats are "unneeded", I haven't really seen you around that much. Ral315 (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No offense, but you can't have been looking very hard. I've edited nearly as many individual articles as you have total edits on Wikipedia. While a large number of them are Japan-related, there are a significant number outside of that area, including all over in the Wikipedia namespace. This is why on all RfAs and RfBs a link is provided so you can peruse my contributions. There are some admin candidates I haven't heard of, but I always look through their contributions to see what they've done. We have over 1.5 million articles on Wikipedia now, so it's becoming increasingly likely that one editor may not be intimately (or even peripherally) familiar with the edits of another editor. I've been doing my best to not harrass those who !vote "oppose," but this really is a non-reason for opposing. Please take the time to look through my contributions, and then make your decision. If you still decide to !vote "oppose," I have no problem with that. Please know that I'm not trying to single you out or attack you. However, I expect people participating in these discussions to have at least taken a few minutes to look through the relevant material. Thank you. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 03:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Taxman. -- Selmo  (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, after much hesitation, per Taxman.--R613vlu 12:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak Oppose I agree with Ral315, I don't want to impose a need requirement for b'crats, but I simply have not seen enough of your work first hand to entrust you with the bureaucrat but.-- danntm T C 14:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment just above under Ral315's !vote. Thanks. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 03:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever happened to the right to abstain? ~ trialsanderrors 03:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who this question is directed at. Either way, "oppose" is not the same as "abstain". ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 04:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It was directed at Dan. If I don't feel like I know a candidate enough I investigate the past contribution record or I abstain (meaning I don't even vote Neutral, which really means "I know you but I'm on the fence"). Opposing because of a lack of familiarity is almost an assumption of bad faith. Btw, your sig is a bit... cluttery, Joe. ~ trialsanderrors 04:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not wishing to speak for the candidate, but there's some explanation of the sig in the candidate's answer to my question, above. --Dweller 11:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral for now. I thought the general criteria now is 75-80% and not 75-85%?  Insane  phantom   (my Editor Review)  12:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some confusion on this in recent discussions, but the general consensus seemed to be between 75-85% (people kept mentioning a "10% range"), so that's what I put down in answer here. Whatever is the consensus is what I would follow, as indicated in my reply to the question above. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 16:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What recent discussion? Something on WT:RFA? My understanding is that it's 80%, if by nothing but tradition. Can anyone provide a counterexample where a bureaucrat refused to promote a good deal above that limit?--Kchase T 12:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't have any examples of someone not being promoted if they were above 80%. After reviewing the recent discussions, it appears that there are two sets of numbers discussed: 70-80% and 75-85%. I'm fine with either one as a standard, if the community wants to set one in stone as it were. As I indicate above, I'd follow whatever the consensus was. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 16:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Potentially a good candidate but maybe this is the wrong time.--Newport 13:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral Candidate has the capability but I do not think that we really need Bereaucrats at this stage. Shyam  ( T / C ) 20:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Mostly because I don't read the same 85% figure out of the sum total of past RFAs, past promotion decisions, indications from other bureaucrats in their own RfBs and what little of the WT:RFA archives I've read. I haven't read everything, and since I only managed to register my opinion at the final hour, I'm neutral rather than opposed.--Kchase T 11:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.