Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 2

Edit summary
Nihonjoe's edit stats using "wannabe Kate" tool as of 19:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC):

Category talk:	109 Category:	402 Help talk:	1 Help:	4 Image talk:	30 Image:	352 Mainspace	11268 Portal talk:	11 Portal:	44 Talk:	4110 Template talk:	89 Template:	591 User talk:	1754 User:	843 Wikipedia talk:	1073 Wikipedia:	2564

avg edits per page	2.06 earliest	00:20, 21 September 2005 number of unique pages	11282 total	23245

2005/9 	62 	2005/10 	672 	2005/11 	844 	2005/12 	820 	2006/1 	1112 	2006/2 	923 	2006/3 	1970 	2006/4 	2898 	2006/5 	1566 	2006/6 	1402 	2006/7 	1366 	2006/8 	1658 	2006/9 	993 	2006/10 	1650 	2006/11 	556 	2006/12 	1368 	2007/1 	1587 	2007/2 	535 	2007/3 	901 	2007/4 	362 	(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red denotes edits without an edit summary)

Mainspace 161	High School! Kimengumi 112	The Generations Network 87	Anime 71	Hentai 65	Tesshō Genda 63	GameTZ.com 38	Yoko Minamino 38	Tales from Earthsea (film) 36	Hayao Miyazaki 36	Cuteness in Japanese culture 32	Urusei Yatsura 30	Japan 30	Geibi Line 29	Akemi Takada 28	Narumi Kakinouchi

Talk: 69	Cuteness in Japanese culture 63	Anime 49	Hentai 42	Japan 26	High School! Kimengumi 20	Kouta Hirano 18	Seiyū 17	Kimi ga Yo 16	Japanophile 14	Liancourt Rocks/Archive 5 14	Linksys iPhone 14	Sea of Japan 14	Editing of anime in American distribution 13	The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 12	Tales from Earthsea (film)

Category talk: 25	Japan stubs 5	WikiProjects 3	Wikipedia requested photographs in Japan 2	Companies in Fukui Prefecture 2	Geibi Line 2	Aomori Prefecture 2	Aichi Prefecture 2	Akita Prefecture 2	Ehime Prefecture 2	Candidates for speedy deletion 2	Ainu 2	Empire of Japan 2	Japan Category: 8	Japan-related projects 5	Japan stubs 5	Anime by studio 5	Japan 5	Government of Tokyo 4	WikiProject Japan participants 4	Science fiction conventions 4	Companies in Fukui Prefecture 4	Japanese education stubs 4	Geibi Line 4	Japan-related articles by quality 4	Anime character designers 3	Wikipedians interested in Japan 3	Beverage companies of Japan 3	WikiProject Japan

Help: 4	Japanese

Image: 4	RusudenMessageShow-AnimeStarHen-CDcover.jpg 4	Daylight saving time004006.png 3	Mariko Kouda-VitaminPunch-CDcover.jpg 3	MiyukiMusicIssueLPcover.jpg 3	Highschool Kimen-gumi-Pachinko-G.gif 3	Highschool Kimen-gumi-Pachinko-F.gif 3	Highschool Kimen-gumi-Pachinko-FX.gif 3	Highschool Kimen-gumi-Pachinko-MX.gif 3	Fizz Sound Creation logo.jpg 3	Highschool Kimen-gumi-TheTableHockeyPSXgamecover.jpg 3	402211.jpg 3	Bessatsu Shonen Sunday 196603 cover.jpg 3	Highschool Kimen-gumi-Pachinko-HX.gif 3	TsukuyomiBestCollection.jpg 2	Niimi Station front.jpg

Image talk: 5	Yamauchi.jpg 4	Yoko ueno.jpg 2	YasuiKunihiko-81Produce.jpg 2	Daylight saving time004006.png

Portal: 8	Speculative fiction/News 6	Japan/Things you can do 5	Japan/Projects 4	Speculative fiction/Description 4	Speculative fiction 3	Speculative fiction/Genres 2	Asia/WikiProjects 2	List of portals 2	Star Wars/Star Wars News

Portal talk: 2	Speculative fiction 2	Dragonlance/Title 2	Dragonlance 2	Anime and Manga

Template: 265	Newest Japan-related articles 42	Newest articles about trains in Japan 17	Speculative fiction 17	WikiProject Japan 13	WPJ 12	Studio Ghibli Films 11	WikiProject Japan/to do 9	WPJ-Barnsensu 8	Geibi Line 7	Gaijin tarento 6	TOC float left 6	WMT 6	Kōbe Line 5	User WPJapan 5	TOC float right

Template talk: 8	Talkheader 7	Wikiportal:Japan/Featured 5	Infobox animanga 5	WPBiography 5	Newest Japan-related articles 5	Speculative fiction 4	WikiProject Japan 3	Kōbe Line 3	Studio Ghibli Films 2	Japan Railway Line 2	WMT 2	Geibi Line 2	TOC float left 2	TOC float right 2	WPJ

User: 568	Nihonjoe 54	Nihonjoe/Userboxen 20	Nihonjoe/Samurai 18	Nihonjoe/Kawaii 15	Nihonjoe/Test 14	Nihonjoe/Tsukue 12	Nihonjoe/Glossary of Japanese film credit terms 5	Nihonjoe/Translation of Japanese film credits into English 5	Silence/Archive0008 4	Nihonjoe/TestB 3	Alai/JAnime-V-actors 3	Nihonjoe/Test1 3	Haeleth 3	Improv/talkarchive made feb2006 3	RPH

User talk: 652	Nihonjoe 22	Taeguk Warrior 12	Cool Cat 10	Miborovsky 10	Haeleth/Archive 1 10	Fg2 8	Nihonjoe/Samurai 8	Mangojuice 7	Ohnoitsjamie 7	Paul August 6	Good friend100 6	Squilibob 5	TakuyaMurata 5	Dollarfifty 5	69.24.191.201

Wikipedia: 165	WikiProject Japan 85	Requested articles/Japan 84	WikiProject Deletion sorting/Japan 54	Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 52	Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) 32	Administrator intervention against vandalism 28	Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 25	Requested moves 25	WikiProject Japan/Place names with unusual readings 24	Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Japan articles by quality statistics 23	Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Nihonjoe 22	Suggestion box 20	Articles for deletion/Old 18	Articles for deletion/MyFamily.com, Inc. 17	WikiProject Japan/Importance

Wikipedia talk: 250	WikiProject Japan 222	Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) 111	WikiProject Anime and manga 38	WikiProject Trains in Japan 36	Counter-Vandalism Unit 31	Requests for mediation/Japanese Macrons 13	Requests for adminship 12	Manual of Style/(Japan-related articles)/Name order 12	Japan-related topics notice board 12	Anime and Manga Collaboration of the Week 10	WikiProject Japan/Collaboration 8	Translation into English/Japanese 8	WikiProject Japanese mythology 8	Requested articles/Japan 7	Proposed policy on userboxes

Block log: 78 Delete log: 3235 Protect log: 114

This should be a good measure of whether RFB is broken or not
For what it's worth, I as a crat wouldn't have advocated the promotion of Danny due to the strength of the opposition, but I can't in all good conscience oppose an RFB candidate who says they would have promoted him, provided they can justify the decision. Nihonjoe has said he agreed with the procedure and would have abided by the consensus of the crats' discussion, which is good enough for me. A number of oppose !votes here seem to be solely based on the possibility that the user would make one decision they disagree with, not that he would do the job badly. From what I can see, Nihonjoe is a well respected contributor, and there's little to no evidence that he would make a bad bureaucrat. With Essjay's departure, we need another crat, and imho we should never turn down willing, qualified volunteers. In conclusion, then, I feel that if this RFB fails it's a very good sign that the system is broken, because we're not likely to get many better candidates than this editor. --kingboyk 11:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There's probably no good admin who'd make a bad bureaucrat; so long as they're interested in the RfA process, have a good eye for consensus, and a level head, there's no reason to not have another. See also the common criteria I listed here. People who oppose because of one incident are forgetting that Nihonjoe did not make that decision. This should be no big deal.  Majorly   (hot!)  12:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * RfB isn't promoting any bureaucrats, whether or not that means its broken is up for debate. I think it probably is broken. I just hope someone can prove me wrong. --Deskana (fry that thing!)  12:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We're slowly coming up to a year long gap of no new 'crats. Next month will be the longest time without a promotion ever.  Majorly   (hot!)  12:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen, a lot of them were sunk by the "we don't need any more" opiners. Frankly, if there are any opinions in RfB or RfA that should be ignored, it is "we don't need any more".  We do.  Even if we don't right this instant, people are going to depart, reducing the supply, and hopefully we are going to grow, increasing the demand.  I do think, however, that it will be nearly impossible to get anyone to 90%; either people participate in WT:RfA and are sunk for what they say, or they don't and are sunk for not saying enough.  GRBerry 02:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Especially if you talk percentages. There's a camp of people here who go ballistic anytime anything related to numbers is mentioned in connection to RfA. It's somewhat frustrating when people don't see the connection between the number of people expressing an opinon one way or the other, and consensus. They are so blinded by an objection to any mention of votes and percentages that they can't see past it to what is actually being said. I begin to wonder if anyone will ever again achieve the necessary consensus to pass RfB in the current climate. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 03:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless they're one of a handful of our most respected contributors (and I mean literally a handful, i.e. not the likes of you (no offence) and I), they'd probably be wasting their time even trying. Now, who wants to propose RFB reform?? :) --kingboyk 13:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a crowd that goes ballistic if you mention percentages as a way of closing RfAs and a crowd that goes ballistic if you say you'd not use percentages. Broken? Nah. --Deskana (fry that thing!)  16:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mackensen stated he would not use perecentages, he was opposed for it. Nihonjoe, myself and other recent RfB candidates have stated we'd use percentages. We were opposed for it. So, now that the "no need for more" argument is dying out, we have another catch-22 situation.  Majorly   (hot!)  16:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But what are we going to do about it? --Deskana (fry that thing!)  20:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I know! All admins are bureaucrats! Been suggested before, why not try again eh?  Majorly   (hot!)  20:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I quite like that idea. Imagine how much of a fit "no need for more bureaucrats" people would have when we have 1000+ :-p --Deskana (fry that thing!)  20:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Another potential problem is the crats themselves. I've seen some RfBs sink because a crat would drop in and say, "We don't need more; the three of us shove each other to promote RfAs", leading to a parade of opposes "per ____". We should ban crats from voting on RfBs. &mdash; Deckiller 20:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's the link: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_14 I think we should move this to the main RfA talk page.  Majorly   (hot!)  20:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Deckiller: You're right, I've seen that happen too. I think that may be a good idea. Majorly: Lets do it. Lets have a discussion though, not a poll? --Deskana (fry that thing!)  20:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I vote we do that :) Be prepared for the opposition to it...  Majorly   (hot!)  20:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I expect it will get nowhere but it's probably worth a try and maybe another good idea will come out of it. --Deskana (fry that thing!)  20:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All admins as crats might be a bit much, in terms of numbers and in terms of "safety". I'd be happier with a proposal for "all admins of (say) 1 year tenure". I.e. serve as an admin for a year, get the crat flag. However, both of these proposals are vulnerable to the obvious problem: the more crats there are, especially if we're talking hundreds or over a thousand, the more chance there is for a "robdurbar" incident. We don't want Willy on Wheels being given the sysop flag! :) --kingboyk 22:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There's at least two ways of dealing with a broken system. 1) Change it (see above). 2) Boycott it. --kingboyk 22:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)