Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 4/Bureaucrat discussion

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

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

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

However, as always, I am open to changing my mind due to suitably convincing arguments, as, obviously, I think this case tenuous enough that I am unwilling to unilaterally find no consensus. -- Avi (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about your summary of the position:
 * "The first set of opposition arguments bring examples of Joe's interpretation, or lack thereof, of policies, and express concern that Joe does not express judgment often, and when he does, there are concerns with that judgment."
 * I may have missed something, but I seem to be missing these examples. It seems to me that the opposition relies on one "giant" example, but seems to be a dearth of other evidence supporting the conclusion of the opposers which you identify. WJBscribe (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Responded below; thank you, Will. -- Avi (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing that I am support #2, just want to say before someone slaps me with a crat chat message that I recuse from this discussion.  bibliomaniac 1  5  06:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, you do not have to recuse from the discussion of what the community consensus is, and how we arrive at it. All you must do is 1) recuse from closure and 2) be clear with your analysis that it your opinion of the community's discussion; not your opinion of the candidate. -- Avi (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a settled view on that issue. Even though what you say is technically right, it is often worth erring on the side of caution here. People are likely to have concerns about someone who supported a candidate arguing that there is a consensus for them to be promoted (or vice versa). Expressing an opinion on the merits of the candidate sacrifices neutrality and I think the position of refraining from any action qua bureaucrat once one has supported or opposed is often wise. We general don't like admins closing AfDs that they have expressed an opinion on, even though it is possible to form a detached view of the outcome of the discussion that is independent from one's personal participation. WJBscribe (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's never been any question around bureaucrats who have commented on an RfX having to recuse themselves from taking part in a 'crat chat before. But we have more active bureaucrats than at many times in the past, so it's not going to cause any problems if some of us choose to recuse ourselves from this discussion. Warofdreams talk 10:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


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

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

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


 * My comments now reflect those general remarks I made yesterday on the RfB. There is a lot of hyperbole regarding the "pedophilia matter" - much noise and very little light - on both sides of the discussion.
 * A lot of the opposition over the pedophilia issue is couched in terms that they are concerned that Nihonjoe will follow too strictly the wording of policy and lack flexibility/a willing to IAR in the right circumstances. What I find surprising is that Nihonjoe is not an unknown quantity when it comes to making these sorts of a decision (as an RfA candidate might be) - he has been an admin for 3 1/2 years. But those opposing do not, as one might expect, cite a range of incidents over that period where he displays this alleged tendency - instead the conclusion is extrapolated from his participation in a discussion with Ryan last month. I have to say that I find this problematic - there is a dearth of examples of other instances of problematic judgment.
 * The remaining opposition over the issue is expressed differently. As I understand it, the position taken by the others is that prohibiting such people from participating in the project is such an obvious example of common sense that they cannot trust someone who does not support such a prohibition. It is not however the case that everyone except Nihonjoe agree on this point - a number of long term contributors have over the years expressed doubts regarding the approach we take in this area. To come to the conclusion that disagreeing (and Nihonjoe has expressed mere disagreement - he did not reverse the block) is not acceptable on some issue is an uneasy proposition.
 * I worry about the introduction of litmus tests to candidates - especially when this one has so little connection to the job of being a bureaucrat (which does not involve the blocking policy, indeed a bureaucrat could serve in that position without ever block/unblocking or even discussing a block). I also remember all too well the polarising effect of "bad sites" when the fight over that issue spilled over into RfX.
 * For those reasons, I think the bulk of the opposition is problematic and I don't think it has the weight that at first glance it may have. That said it is certainly valid opposition - those opposing make it clear that because of the "pedophilia issue" they simply do not trust Nihonjoe - that is something that must of course be taken into account.
 * What is threshhold needed for promotion at RfB? I do not think there is now much support for the position that some sky high landmark of 90% support is needed for bureaucrat appointment. I think this RfB falls into a discretionary area. I think it difficult to talk in the language of consensus. Wikipedia has rather twisted the meaning of that word and I worry with the conclusion that there would be a consensus to promote if this were an RfA, but maybe not because it's an RfB. Nevertheless it seems that a clearer and stronger demonstration of consensus is needed for an RfB to pass.
 * I find myself reaching the conclusion that a clear enough consensus exists for Nihonjoe to become a bureaucrat. Whilst the opposition is certainly valid, it is almost exclusively based on a single issue and has the limitation I have described, and a high level of support is demonstrated. WJBscribe (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thought-provoking, WJB. I find you leading me though into the realm of my personal opinion, versus my mandated position to assess the community's. I personally would reject an assessment of the candidate as having inherently flawed judgement based on this single incident (and indeed the large number of recent supporters would seem to agree), but what concerns me is that at least a sizable body of the community does not. Perhaps because that section of community feels so strongly about the single issue, perhaps not, but my role tells me to decide that it's irrelevant why, and it's irrelevant that I disagree on a single issue's importance. My cold dispassionate and impersonal reading of the RfB is that significant opposition to the candidate exists, regardless of my view of that opposition. And here's the rub: that it is rooted in a concern relevant to RfB (judgement) is crucial and makes it truly very difficult for me to discount it as being anything other than a bar to consensus. I'm not sure if I've been clear enough - I've found it hard to express myself on this one. --Dweller (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Will, above you indicated that you believe that there was only one major issue that was giving people concern as to Joe's judgment; I presume you mean the pedophile issue. I based my initial remarks saying that I saw non-pedophile-related concerns about judgment on the following opposition opinions: #1, #13, #15, #16, #19, and #22, which are not related to Joe's responses in the pedophilia incident. I believe that oppositions #3, #5, #6, #9, #12, #24, and #26, while not "platform anti-pedophilia" oppositions, are oppositions based on the judgment and actions displayed during the pedophilia incident. This is why I think that we must consider that there was opposition to Joe's judgment independent of the pedophilia issue, and how it isn't just a reaction to one event. Of course, I may be misinterpreting the opinions, which is why this discussion is necessary. -- Avi (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with that as such, but I would point out that although those opposes use the pedophilia point to make a wider criticism of Nihonjoe's judgment, and a couple say that there are other incidents where his judgment was similarly faulty, none actually give examples. Lets take Ryan's oppose (#3), which I chose because it started the ball rolling and because I hope Ryan will forgive me singling him out, he accuses Nihonjoe of a "flippant attitude", "process wonkery" and says that Nihonjoe is unable to move beyond the precise words of policy. But, despite 3 1/2 years of evidence of how Nihonjoe approaches being an administrator being available, he offers no other example of when Nihonjoe too rigidly followed policy. There is an assumption, pervasive amongst the opposition, that because Nihonjoe insited on policy to support this one block, he will always be too tightly constrained by policy and so will not make a good bureaucrat. I'm sorry but I don't think that point can be seen as strong unless supported by other evidence. There's very little in the discussion to suggest that the bulk of the opposition is not in fact "just a reaction to one event" - a lot of the opposers are very open in explaining that their position is based on that one event. Given that no other evidence was forthcoming, I do not think the opposition is strong enough to refuse to promote given that the discussion has ended at a point where I believe we have a discretion in assessing the final consensus. WJBscribe (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Will, I am going to play devil's advocate, so that if these points are successfully defended, it will make our decision all the clearer and stronger. Firstly, opposes do not have to bring specific examples. An editor is allowed to state that based on the sum total of their interactions or analysis of a candidate, they do not trust said candidate to perform the bureaucratic function of consensus measuring appropriately. This can be, and often was completely independent from the pedophilia issue. Furthermore, some editors did bring examples, although not specific diffs. Here are some that I found compelling::
 * Oppose #13: "…I believe that Nihonjoe just can't ignore all rules and read consensus properly in AFDs or CSDs. He's more of a vote counter when he closes AFDs, and I seen him deny CSDs on articles that I deleted five min later, on articles won't stand a snowball chance in AFD or prod, and are common sense deletions, or doesn't claim notabilty other than a unsourced local student award or such and meets CSD criteria. I can't see him close controversal RFAs and that's a problem."
 * Oppose #14: "…but concerns about Nihonjoe's judgement are not new. In his previous RfB, I see concerns over judgement in the oppose section. Just as disconcerting, I see Nihonjoe actively questioning opposes in a manner which makes me unconfortable. I want to see bureaucrats whose judgement I can trust and respect, but also bureaucrats who can admit to their infrequent mistakes in judgement. I'm not so comfortable with how Nihonjoe would participate in a 'crat chat if he strongly held a view that may not be the correct one."
 * Oppose #16: "lack of confidence in what his understanding of an administrator's role and possible ability to weigh arguments about administrators. This is an important function in determining close RfAs, and I do not believe Nihonjoe has the right mindset."
 * Oppose #19: “My oppose is based on experience. Joe says in Q17 that he'd focus on CHU, but I've pretty much never seen him there. I double-checked the stats to confirm my thought and he's edited WP:CHU fewer times than any of his RFBs. Nor have I often seen him at WT:RFA. Sure, he is most definitely active at UAA, I see his name there most of the times I glance at that page. But UAA is somewhat indirectly related to bureaucratship. Joe is an excellent admin, and even a nice guy (I met him at Wikipedia Meetup), but I just haven't seen him hanging around the bureaucrat-related areas enough to make me think, "Hey, he should be one of the 'crats!"”
 * Oppose #22: "I'm sorry. At RfB, voters need the confidence in the candidates judgment. After seeing the answers provided, I do not have the confidence necessary to support."
 * All of the above occurred after Ryan's comments, and none of them even remotely rely on the pedophilia issue. Note that opposes such as #25 or #26, which do not mention anything about the pedophilia issue, may be interpreted to be primarily based on that, so I haven't listed them here.
 * I agree that should the sole issue be the pedophilia one, I would lean to promoting as well, for the reasons you brought as well as I implied above (was handled not in error). But it in and of itself is a reason why people may doubt Joe's judgment, and that, together with the other unrelated reasons, indicate that there is concern by the community about Joe. Each camp on their own may not have been significant; the question remains is the combination indicative of significant enough concern about Joe or not. -- Avi (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure analysing comments in detail is helpful. Those are only 5 out of 27 opposes and a couple suffer from the same lack of supporting evidence that bothers me with the "pedophile issue" opposes. #13 gives no example of an improperly closed AfD or poor CSD decision, #23 does not say which answers are problematic or in what way. I'm certainly not saying we should discount these (or indeed any opposition). But this RfB lies in a discretionary area and, in my judgment, reasons given by those opposing lack sound supporting evidence. I do not think we should give the same weight to comments such as "X would follows rules too ridgidly" or "X misjudges consenus at AfD" when no examples of the problematic behaviour are given as we would if proper links and diffs were supplied with a clear explanation of what the opposer found problematic. WJBscribe (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've spent a long time looking at this, because I agree that it is in the discretionary range, but the level of opposition initially appears to quite significant. There is a common theme in almost all the opposition, that these editors believe that Joe sticks too closely to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and has not applied his own judgement on occasions when they feel he should.  The paedophilia issue is the sole example given by many of these editors.  A far smaller number of comments in opposition raise a variety of issues which have not been supported by other users.  The pattern of edits since Ryan raised the paedophilia issue suggest that editors are sharply split over its significance.  Almost all of those already in support have continued to support, with some adding reaffirmations.  Since Ryan commented, 24 further editors have opposed, most but not all referencing his comments, while 46 have added their support, many specifically stating that they do not concur with this set of objections, although a few state that they are supporting despite them.  Clearly, the opposition is significant, but given the number of editors who have stated that they do not agree with its key points, I'm weakly tending towards feeling that there is enough here to show the expected level of consensus in order to promote. Warofdreams talk 23:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


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

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

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

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


 * Kingturtle expresses my opinion pretty well. While I personally find much of the oppose to be insufficient to prevent my own support, I'm bound to respect a considerable body of people opposing on a valid rationale. They're not opposing because he has ginger hair, or likes Shirley Temple or because he prefers Blur to Oasis, they're opposing over judgement, in essence, which is a reasonable grounds on which to oppose.


 * Giggy's infamous RfA comes to mind here too, because the way the !voting was going, the level of support was plummeting after Ryan's intervention (although not quite as late as Giggy's). That, for me, makes using discretion in the opposite direction from the impetus of the RfB even less appropriate.


 * I am sorry, because I'd love to head into their camp of the Crats supporting promotion. We could do with another pair of hands and I like the candidate's credentials. (I'm also pretty impressed by his dignity in the face of this storm). But I'm unpersuaded by the arguments I've seen so far and remain strongly of the opinion that this is a no consensus. --Dweller (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Closing discussions?
I'm not sure how long we'll feel comfortable discussing for, (I'm already feeling a bit antsy for the candidate), but I'd request no-one close this for a little while yet.

I am keen that a) we get some more Crat opinions and b) we take into account the unhelpful time zone differences which can make the cut and thrust of discussion tortuous, especially across the Atlantic.

I can't do much about b), but on a), I gave TRM a quick heads-up offwiki and he's hoping to find some time from house-move-hell to pop in and give his opinion. To name one other, I'd really like to see EVula weigh in here, particularly because I find we think very differently and I'd appreciate another perspective, so I'll drop an email there too. --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the Crats are currently locked at 4 apiece, with MBisanz indecisive. While we wait in the hope that some others may still join this party, perhaps now might be a good time to discuss the option mentioned on the talk page of reopening the RfB? I'm not sure it would be a great idea, but I'm open to persuasion. --Dweller (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's face it, if Ryan hadn't posted his concern, Joe would now be a crat, all other concerns raised would not have been sufficient to stop crat-ship for Joe. So this does come down to one event. Joe's position in that event was defensible and he gave sound reasoning for it even if all don't agree--that's what a crat should do. The opposers in this RFB latched on to that and I get the impression many did so simply because it was pedo related. While I have no tolerance for pedophiles, I don't think Joe was defending the users' admitted pedophilia but rather their right to edit in non controversial ways. Aside from all this, I agree with much of what AD has written but would come to WJB's conclusion and promote Joe to crat-ship. — Rlevse • Talk  • 15:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but one can also that it comes down to significant opposition to Joe's judgment for more than just the Tyciol issue, even though Tyciol on its own or the others on their own would have been insufficient. However, both appear on the discussion page. In order to promote Joe, we need to be clear on why we think the combination of both should not be considered significant. -- Avi (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello all, just a flying visit while I take a break from emptying boxes and hanging curtains. A shame to have to pop by in such circumstances.  I think Rlevse has probably just about summed up my thoughts, but I still feel cautious over the opposers who also questioned Joe's judgement without specifically referring to that one specific situation.  There's no doubt in my mind that Joe was trying to do "the right thing" there, but so often this can be seen in a multitude of ways (particularly with such an emotive subject) and he's found himself in the minority on this one.  I think that we have sufficient community doubt to prevent Joe's promotion on this occasion, but he should be applauded for his dignity in the face of so many hostile comments.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I explained why I think an extension would not be appropriate here on the talk page, FWIW. -- Avi (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I expect to remain "indecisive" at least to avoid becoming the deciding crat when I don't want to be. We've got 30+ crats, I'm sure we can find another one of them with my rugged good looks.  MBisanz  talk 19:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see below; I am still considering my opinion of the community's response, but I would appreciate being corrected if my synopsis is incorrect. -- Avi (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Brass tacks
From our discussions, I think the following observations are valid: If we agree that the above is a decent synopsis of the situation, it boils down to whether or not there exists sufficient opposition to Joe for bureaucrat-related reasons (judgment, lack of experience, etc.) when combining Tyciol and non-Tyciol-based oppositions, and how much to weight the Tyciol-based opposition vis-a-vis the "one event" and possible subconscious responses to pedophilia reactions. -- Avi (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Outside of the Tyciol issue, the opposition to Joe is not significant enough to prevent granting the tools.
 * 2) Joe's actual handling of the Tyciol issue was not against wikipedia policy, and outside of some confusion as to what a particular ArbCom policy was, Joe, Ryan, et al. followed accepted dispute resolution procedures.
 * 3) The driving force that causes the Tyciol case to be so polarizing—whether to extend wikipedia editing privileges to self-proclaimed pedophiles—is not something Joe ever supported, and oppositions based on the claim that "anyone who would support pedophiles to edit wikipedia does not have the judgment to be a bureaucrat" are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Joe's actions and should be viewed as weaker oppositions.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but the two main schools of thought above are: Does anyone disagree that the crux of the issue is encapsulated above? -- Avi (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Joe should be promoted because there is insufficient opposition being that many of the Tyciol opposes were actually platform opposition to pedophilia and even those who used it as a litmus test on Joe's judgment did not bring any other examples. Thus, even in conjunction with non-Tyciol opposition, these do not weaken the consensus found in the support section.
 * Joe should not be promoted because there is a sufficient concern among editors about Joe's judgment, some based on a wider spectrum of Joe's actions, some based on the Tyciol issue, which they use as an indicator.
 * Seems fairly accurate but I want to point out that some people have or stated they will change to support now.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 22:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted above at the end of the main section (re: Balloonman and Zscout) -- Avi (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm mulling your summary Avi. I'll try and get back on here today and post. If I don't, It may be another day or two before I can - I rarely edit at weekends. --Dweller (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think your statement is broadly reflective of the truth, Avi.
 * How much longer do you think we ought to let this discussion continue? I think it's apparent that we are currently deadlocked, and I'm not sure it is right and fair to continue deliberations too long. What I'd love is for three Crats to come out of the woodwork and all opine in the same direction (whichever that is), but sadly I find that unlikely on both grounds (three will appear, and they'll concur). I doubt I'll be back "in" for a day or two. I think this RfB should be closed long before then. --Dweller (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing the RfB for the umpteenth time, together with this discussion, the discussion on this talk page, some older bureaucrat discussions, and some of the debate on RfB opposition levels, I have changed my mind. Firstly, the level of opposition required to indicate a lack of consensus is higher now than it was when Riana and I underwent these discussions. While there is no hard level (nor should there be), approaching this RfB with the older 9:1 ratio in the back of our minds does not reflect the community's current expectations and desires regarding the granting of bureaucratic maintenance tools. Secondly, there is undoubtedly opposition to Joe based on opinion about his judgment in various areas. Opinions such as Pedro's and Backslash Forwardslah's (just two that come to mind; there are others) are broad-based concerns about Joes' ability as demonstrated in various venues. However, in my opinion, I find that opinions of that nature are, on there own, insufficient to be considered significant enough opposition to counter the outpouring of opinions in the support section. So we come to the opinions based on the Tyciol incident. Those opinions which seem to be anti-pædophilia responses, while respectable, moral, and understandable, do not indicate issues with Joe as a person or bureaucrat. Finally, again, after re-reading each of the opinions again and again, and sleeping on it, I feel that the opinions that use this one incident as a indicator of general judgment combined with the broader-based oppositions, do not constitute sufficient opposition in today's environment to unseat the broad consensus found in the support section. Had this RfB occurred contemporaneously with Riana's or my second RfB, the matter may be different, and Redux, whom I quoted above, was talking under the older environment for the requirements for bureaucratic consensus, but it occurred today, and that, together with the dependence on many of the oppositions on either a misreading of Joe and his actions, or a human, visceral response to a reviled activity which did not affect the opinions of the vast majority of those who opined on this request, lead me to decide that there is consensus, albeit surely not universal agreement, for Joe to get the tools. I would counsel him to take all of the oppositions based on the Tyciol incident to heart. As an aside, after another four or so hours, I will be off-wiki until Saturday night EST; I am willing to take the responsibility to close this (I did open the discussion, after all) but, on one hand, I would like the other bureaucrats to have the opportunity to contribute yet once more, but I understand that leaving Joe hanging is rather discourteous, so if this isn't closed by the time I log off, and the rest of y'all come to a decision, please don't leave Joe hanging. -- Avi (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

My two cents: Pass. (by "two cents," I apparently meant "single bolded word").

The majority of the opposition was based on a single event; however, a significant pattern of poor judgement failed to be painted. Yes, there is opposition that references situations outside the Ryan discussion, but those are firmly in the minority of the oppositions, and are overshadowed even further by the supporters that praised his judgement (including, and this is one of the things that I find compelling as a bureaucrat, the very people that had previously opposed him). Factoring in the pedophile discussion (both sides), the initial knee-jerk reaction is that it is overwhelming, but a closer examination shows several holes in the opposition (such as misunderstanding what happened, or assigning intent behind actions that was never there to begin with). The entire pedophile situation is one mired in emotion, and I feel that some people allowed their emotions to overtake their rationality; such !votes aren't constructive, and justly deserve to be weighed differently (to be fair, I greatly disliked the "counter-balance" supports as well).

At the end of the day, there was simply greater support despite the Ryan discussion than there was opposition because of the Ryan discussion, especially when a significant portion of the pedophile-derived opposition was based on dubious grounds. (apologies if this seems relatively brief, but several of you had already made similar comments, and I didn't feel like bulking up my comments to TLDR levels by merely rephrasing everything) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

With Avi changing and Evula supporting, I make that 6-3 in support of promoting. — Rlevse • Talk  • 23:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Closing time?
It seems to me that there are sufficient bureaucrats who agree that there is a consensus to promote Nihonjoe that a successful close is justifiable. If after a few more hours, no new bureaucrats have contributed to the discussion and people's views remained unchanged, I think we can conclude that this discussion represents everyone's final positions. In which case, bearing in mind Avi's stated absence, I am minded to close the discussion based on the above majority evaluation of the discussion. WJBscribe (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am also now willing to close as successful. I simply feel we have sufficient crat support fot it. I count it as 6-3 for promotion (I know on the talk page someone else counted 5-4 but I count AD as support due to the reason Pyfan stated). While MBisanz recused he seems to support a promotion also. I also feel it significant that Ryan does not object to a promotion. Scribe, it's okay with me if you do the honors. I will only do it if no significant opposition appears and you have not done it by early evening UTC time. — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, and having reviewed the more recent discussions, I would not object to a promoting closure, and the sooner the better, for Joe's sake. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As that's pushed it into an even greater majority of bureaucrats in favor of promotion, I'm going to go ahead and flip the switch. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 16:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Closed
As per the comment I made nine minutes ago, I've closed the RfB. Nihonjoe is now a bureaucrat. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 16:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you and thank you to everyone for their input into this discussion. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I commend you all on the care you placed in this discussion. Yours, Kingturtle (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, everyone, for participating in this discussion, and thank you for not letting Joe hang out there longer than necessary. This was not an easy decision, and through everyone's participation, I think that we successfully implemented the community's will. Hopefully, they'll all be easier in the future. Thank you all again! -- Avi (talk) 04:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)