Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 4/Bureaucrat discussion

RfB molested by lurking pedophiles
Well, not exactly, but it does kind of feel that way! I decided not to weigh in on this one - mostly because I still don't exactly know what a crat is (my fault I guess, I'm too lazy to go find out). Last time out I gave him a "moral support" vote under Neutral, but this time I didn't feel like being repetitive so I just watched. I worked with him before mostly on some nonsense from another editor hounding him over some minor thing, but this was something else! :) Great drama, really.  It's kind of like a political campaign getting derailed when an opponent digs up an embarrassing secret from the candidate's past and public opinion swiftly turns against him.  I'm wondering how Joe's change of heart will affect the outcome of this discussion? BOZ (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

My opinion
The opposition based solely on Joe's conduct with regard to the pedophile should not be given nearly as much weight as some are giving it and as many would tend to give it upon first glance. I think many of those who opposed did not adequately describe how Joe would be a bad bureaucrat because of his personal opinion on an issue that the community is clearly divided on. Note also that he did not unblock the pedophile but instead engaged in discussion, and he was backed by several other editors. This is just my opinion of course, and it obviously doesn't hold any weight, as I'm not a bureaucrat. But I thought I'd weigh in anyway and see what others think. Tim meh  12:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Two issues not one
It seems that the opposition has only one main issue with Joe, but it's really two separate issues. Joe made the argument that an editor conduct outside Wikipedia ,regardless of how serious, is not a good reason for a block. Then he made the argument that every block by an admin should be supported by a written policy and that admins can't block outside written policy. These are two separate arguments. Actually if his second argument is true then his first argument is irrelevant. Sole Soul (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts
Speaking as a supporter, I think the collective opposition is weaker than it appears at face value. I've not read the entire 'cratchat yet, but in my perhaps biased opinion, there's a consensus—albeit a marginal one—to promote here, but it depends on where we decide to set the threshold for RfBs. The recent discussion at WT:RFA appears to show that a sizable portion of the community believes RfBs are too strict, and that we would be good to allow more leeway in determining where the discretionary range is. That said, it's very concerning that almost all of the opposes were received in the past couple days, and given the repetitive nature of the comments, I have to wonder if the bandwagon effect had an impact on the discussion. Further to that, I feel many of the opposes were misleading and deliberately exaggerated (for example, referring to the the main issue in question as a "pedophile incident", which sounds a lot worse than the activities Nihonjoe actually engaged in.) It goes without saying that the concerns are valid, and there are some quite reasonable objections, but I think it's appropriate to give him the flag. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Very much agreed with JC here, and Timmeh above. It was highly disconcerting to see so many piling on here, with almost no description or evidence, blowing the entire incident completely out of proportion; Joe was somehow painted as condoning pedophilia, which he very clearly stated he was not. As mentioned on the crat chat, besides these, there was almost no opposition to Joe's promotion. While I do not think promotion is a foregone conclusion, this is decidedly within a discretionary range for the 'crats. Glass  Cobra  17:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's also worth pointing out that at least one former supporter has indicated that they would have reinstated their endorsement had they caught the RfB open. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

A related real-life event
It may help to read about David Howard, Anthony Williams, and a tempest-in-a-teapot over what happened versus what was perceived: D.C. Mayor Acted 'Hastily,' Will Rehire Aide. Lest anyone think I am condoning deplorable and illegal behavior, let me explicitly state I am not - and I cannot find any evidence that Nihonjoe did either. And, while it may have been more appropriate to indicate this in the actual RfB, I think it's important that we present ourselves as having a certain set of guidelines and standards that we follow. It would have hurt nothing to have a blocking discussion (with or without ArbCom) before blocking the user. Judging from the rush of opinions at this RfB, it seems likely that discussion would have been short and decisive. It certainly looks to me like that's all Nihonjoe was suggesting; we have policies and ought to implement them for the sake of the community. A community cannot be seen as viable and sustainable if it cannot police itself; while the larger "we" (meaning real-world society) aren't perfect either, we do best when we apply rules to everyone as equally as possible. If the police ran around shooting people because they deserve it...where would we be? And...when they do act that way (which does happen), where would we be if nobody questioned it? No, Wikipedia is not a society and no, its policies are not laws...but I think the analogy holds. Frank |  talk  14:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What I'd do....
Nobody probably cares what I think, but I figured I'd enforce my views upon you regardless! I'd probably pass this request if it was up to me. The ratio of support to opposition was close to the generally accepted "pass" range, and the opposition was based around only one concern, and one that many believe is unsound. If there were other issues, I'd say that the RfB would have shown no consensus, but after reading the opposition time and time again, I get the impression that it's just over the one pedophilia issue, with some opposers of the mistaken belief that Joe is some kind of pedophile-apologist.

To be clear, I stand by my opposition 100%, but I believe the overall picture is to pass this request. Just my 2 pence worth.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't going to say anything, but I find your reasoning very intriguing. I was not pursuaded by the opposition and as I indicated on the RfB's talk page had returned to actually reinstate my support.  But, I would probably close it as failed.  while I agree with WJB's rationale on the crat discussion, I think anonymous dissident's point is also valid.  The trend was clearly moving towards the oppose.  I find it interesting because we both are seeing the strength of the other position, not necessarily what we personally would want... which is why this is at 'crat chat now ;-)--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC) EDIT: I just reread the RfB and the 'crat discussion in light of Ryan's post above and WJB's comments on the crat chat and think Ryan/WJB are correct.  They have convinced me... but I was in favor of Jo's getting the shovel at the start of this RfB...--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wrong Ryan, folks cared about your thoughts during RfB and continue to do so. Your "2 pence worth" took honesty and courage which well reflect your character. Thanks for enforcing your views upon us regardless! hydnjo (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

note...
i will be posting my opinion in a few hours. just got to get a few things done elsewhere first. Kingturtle (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I reconsider my vote
I am not sure if it matters much, but I was out when the RFB was closed. I voted an oppose based on an interaction I had with Nihonjoe about going from Image to File. We both agree that it is not against policy to do that, and I feel that my oppose is not longer needed. I support him becoming a Bcrat, but I just wish he just realizes that sometimes, policy cannot really help when it comes to solving a situation. We just have to take things in our own hands sometimes. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Ched

 * Rather than start a new section, I'll just post here at the end of the page (if you're feel you prefer a separate section Zscout, feel free to section this off.) First, I have to say that I regret getting to this too late to offer my input.  I did notice that several of the opposes were in direct contrast to the clarification that Joe offered, but timing may have been the issue there - I didn't check the timestamps.  I wasn't really able to find anything that made me question Joe's judgment, and I don't find any errors with a person simply because they are unaware of a post, decision, edit, policy, or declaration on WP.  While I wholly support banning of any pedophilia from WP, no one person can be expected to know the entirety of our project.  In looking at the things I've personally seen, Joe seems quite competent to judge consensus, understand bot issues, and deal with UAA and CHU issues so I would have supported.  I do understand that any time the "pedo" words pop up, there's going to be a rush to hit those hot button topics, and my guess would be that perhaps several folks over-reacted and simply opposed an "idea" rather than a candidate.  Further, I believe that Risker makes a very good and valid point in respect to the high expectations for percentages in regards to RfB.  It occurs to me that of the many varied groups we have at WP, that "crat" really doesn't provide any particular privileges much beyond admin, and certainly not to the extent that our Arbs are tasked with. (50% - 60% appears to be the percentage currently being considered for that particular role).  Even if you took out the wp:100 (not exactly a minor accomplishment) - there would still be more supports than opposes, and that's after the quick downturn once the pedo issue came up.  My understanding is that typically "crats" are tasked with determining "consensus", and there appears to be a considerable amount of info in this particular RfB to be able to determine that.  A quick note on the "trends" if I may as well.  While we may be able to perceive a bit of what has taken place in the past, I think it would be a less than optimal approach to attempt to forecast any future trends.  One may be able to clearly see something that has taken place, but just as quickly as a trend my turn downward, it is also possible to turn upward at a moments notice.  Fads can be fleeting things, both IRL and here on WP.  It is probably the wisest thing to deal with the !votes and comments at hand, rather than to try to hypothesize on what "may have occurred" in the future, or under "what if" circumstances.  Just my "IMHO" 2-cents. — Ched :  ?  07:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion
Alright then. The 'crats seem to be pretty divided over whether to promote, which indicates that this RfB is quite borderline. That said, since the end of the RfB, several editors—both opposers and former supporters—have noted that they would have felt comfortable reinstating their support. Despite this, a few people have suggested that the opposition would have gained further momentum had the discussion remained open for a longer period of time. To be honest, though, I feel quite the opposite; even the principle objector assessed this RfB as having been met by sufficient consensus for promotion. There's really only one way to tell what would have happened if the RfB was kept open for another day, so I propose extending it for 24 hours to see if, after a couple days of rest to clear people's heads, there would be continued opposition. This may be difficult for the candidate, but it seems the only way that we can accurately determine where consensus lies. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a good idea. Though I'd suggest longer than 24 hours because of the holiday in the United States. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A 2-3 day expansion would probably have been a good idea but I am unsure if it is now. The discussion here and amongst the crats will probably influence people if the RFB were reopened now and the consensus (or lack thereof) after the expansion period may well be not a result of people's original intentions but of other motives, i.e. of what happened here. On the other hand, we have to assume that people know what they want and given the comments here, it would probably be a net positive to the situation to expand the RFB even though aforementioned discussion has taken place. Regards  So Why  14:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I support extending RfB for few days. If opposes continue rise their percentage it will move RfB out of bureaucrat decision range making things easy, while if opposite happens and supports keep ground or even gain it then it would demonstrate that concerns about continuing downward trend of support percentage are unfounded making it easier to promote. Although discussion should be closely watched, and any attempts to turn it into general "should pedophiles have right to edit or not?" discussion not directly related to case, should be stamped out. I personally avoided commenting in RfB later after voting, mostly because I didn't want to add any fire into those discussions which definitely didn't belong there, nor were in candidate's best interests.--Staberinde (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't interpret this as an opinion on this particular RfB, since I took a firm position as a voter. It seems to me we've got a firm precedent for not extending RfAs (and by extension RfBs) just because it looks like it's going to be a close decision.  OTOH, I think it's a good idea to resist the instinct to force a conclusion when a conclusion isn't there ... that strikes me as one of those cave-man instincts we all share, the need for an arbitrary answer to "Who won?", because we're uncomfortable with uncertainty over hierarchy (and our ancestors had good reason to be uncomfortable, disputes over clan status often led to bloody fights).  I'm not taking a position on whether crats are split right down the middle on this one, but if Dweller is right and that's true, then we don't know "who won".  I generally prefer to put my faith in we-the-voters; there are tough questions here, and given enough time, I think we'll be able to sort it out. - Dank (push to talk) 18:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC) small tweak

My opinion about extensions, as I detailed on my RfB, is that they are useful when something happens at the end of an RfX that could/does drastically change the discussion. The DHMO case is classic; the issues broke at the very end, and Giggy didn't really respond. If Giggy would have responded with a good answer, it is very likely that those who switched to oppose would switch back. In this case, this issue was extant throughout most of the RfB and there was no need to let it run extra to allow people time to log back in to wiki and see the changes/answers. Therefore, I do not think an extension was, or is, warranted. This is just going to be one of the few times the bureaucrats have to earn their paycheck, and make the decisions that the community entrusted them to. -- Avi (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's reasonable, thanks for weighing in! – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment on consensus
One of the principles of determining consensus is examining the validity of the rationale stated in the !votes. In my opinion, Ryan's vote, as well as the subsequent votes based on his, should be discounted because their vote is based on the fact that "Nihonjoe objected to the block of a self-declared pedophile" and that they, the voters, believe that "self-declared pedophiles should be blocked on sight'. However, it should be quite clear from all the discussion surrounding this RfB that many editors feel that blocks should only be issued for on-wiki behavior and not for anything off-wiki. The obvious corollary to this is that any admin or bureaucrat who subscribes to the belief that 'self-declared pedophiles should be allowed to edit freely on wikipedia as long as they don't do anything blockable' should be immediately desysoped or decratted. If Ryan's !vote provides a reasonable argument to not promote, it provides a reasonable argument to demote. That doesn't make sense because we want a plurality of opinions amongst admins and crats rather than a singularity of opinions and should be discounting oppose votes that are based solely on differences of opinion.

Nihonjoe has indicated that he was unaware of an arbcom ruling in this matter (for the record, so was I), and would have followed the ruling if he had been made aware of it by Ryan. We should be more concerned about bureaucrats following policy and less concerned about their opinions on what those policies should be. Those opinions are better left to policy talk pages. Here we have an admin who correctly contested a block because he felt it was out of process and found himself stuck in an emotional argument instead because his requests for clarity on the block were answered in emotional terms (it is quite clear from the discussion where it took an emotional turn). Once a discussion moves its basis from reason to emotion it is best ignored as something worth basing a decision on. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Very well said, RegentsPark. I am personally amazed at how many 'crats are firmly behind a no consensus ruling. I don't see how anyone can justify giving the oppose !votes on the pedophile issue as much weight as the rest. A majority of the opposes were based on Joe's stance on the pedophile, yet they fail to take into account two game-changing facts: Joe's opinion may be in the minority, but it's a damn significant minority whose opinion is certainly not wrong, just a different way to look at things; and second, Joe has stated he was not aware of the ArbCom ruling when discussing the pedophile issue and would enforce such a ruling now that he knows of it. Not promoting Joe based on the current opposition would imply that we should demote all bureaucrats and admins who hold the same opinion as Joe, which includes several hundred editors, I'm sure. Not promoting him would be very much similar to disqualifying a Republican from holding office simply because Democrats are in the majority and oppose his opinion on healthcare. Doing such a thing would discourage differing opinions on an all-but-certain subject, going against everything Wikipedia stands for. Tim  meh  17:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Avi said that he was emailing them all. I'm glad that at least eight (as of this timestamp) have shown the cajones - the rest well, we'll see. Obviously, the least controversial position would be "no consensus" but hell, a bot !vote counter could do that :( hydnjo (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Being busy in the real world is not the same as lacking cajones. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Geesh - I didn't mean anyone in particular and certainly not you! Thanks for your thoughtful analysis. hydnjo (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What I think we're missing here, if we're really getting into the block issue, is that apparently Ryan was unaware of any AC ruling made years ago, too... it was never quoted anywhere, in the block rationale or talk pages and never when questioned. It seems he only sent emails to provide evidence as is usually done with supposedly private things. So we can't really blame Joe for having the ignorance that everyone else had as well. -- Menti  fisto  22:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

General comment
My oppose has been misrepresented in the bureaucrat chat (no suprise). It is not per Ryan, although Ryan's input put me over the edge from neutral. The dismissive, crude and self opinionated observation by Rlevse is insulting to all and he needs to question himself rather than others. My thanks to the Rambling Man for being more than generous in his response and well thought out consideration, and to WJB who has also managed to opine eloquently without resorting to the dismissive attitude I see from his peers. Frankly I don't now give a toss if Joe is promoted. Looking at the current shambles we may as well let Grawp in as a 'crat. He might be better than a good 60% of the current lot in diving consensus. Pedro : Chat  22:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Further, Matts "we've got 30+crats" comment is actually hurting my stomach whilst I laugh. I hought you had a clue Matt? Yeah - let's wheel TUF-KAT out to close it eh? Fuck me..... Pedro : Chat  22:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Pedro, please remain civil; is it really necessary to compare Joe to Grawp? I don't think you're calmly rationalizing your thoughts here. -- Menti  fisto  22:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CIV. Heck, if I wasn't an admin I'd be blocked for my above. Still, no double standards on Wikipedia. Anyone can edit right? Lulz. Pedro :  Chat  22:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. Pedro wasn't being incivil. 2.  Bush v. Gore was a highly controversial decision because the justices got to vote twice and their second vote counted more; if I commented in support and then was the deciding crat in promoting Joe, I wouldn't be any better.  3. TUF-KAT wouldn't be my first choice for tipping-point crat, but I do think that Angela, Taxman, Deskana, or Cecropia have the experience needed to comfortably serve at the tipping point and not be open to accusations of double-voting.  MBisanz  talk 01:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

So everyone who voted after Ryan is opposing over the one thing? I was planning to make my opinion known, but I wanted to see how the discussion would go and whether my oppose was needed. When Ryan's oppose came up, I felt I needed to voice my opinion before the whole thing went to hell. These crat chats really do seem like an exercise in excusing promotions; if we keep doing this opposers will have to write a damn essay to have their opinion counted. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of the bureaucrats think that, Backslash Forwardslash. I've tried to crystallize the discussion as best I could in the last section, for what it is worth. -- Avi (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The notion of one event for opposition should be balanced by the fact that the last crat nomination for Joe was relatively recent. Sole Soul (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hate opposes
I'm wondering... if you just look at the % of opposes that would include that oppose made specifically and blatantly as retaliation because the candidate blocked the user once. No one has mentioned that oppose so far... is it counted at all? I think that oppose really represented the worst in a spectrum. -- Menti  fisto  06:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that is what Avi referred to as some can actually be considered "grudge" oppositions, isn't it? Regards  So Why  06:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is my understanding as well. @Kate   (talk)  08:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Number of active Bureaucrats
I realize this issue is separate from the discussion on whether or not this specific RFB has achieved consensus, but has anyone else noticed the fact that there are only 8 'crats involved in the closing discussion? A number of those who are participating have already expressed concern about their ability to focus on this given real life constraints. I sympathize with Nihonjoe for the prolonged process (as has Avi). 7 09:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I am being too cynical, and perhaps 8 is plenty. I am just wondering out loud if this situation is actually indicative of the number of active crats (and therefore the need for more) or if all the other crats are watching but stepping aside because 8 is enough (no pun intended).   7  09:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the 'crats taking the time necessary to work everything out. I'm in no hurry for a decision. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you look at it from the perspective that 10 crats have done 79% of all renames, I think that a showing of 8 crats in two days is fairly representative of the active crat population.  MBisanz  talk 10:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

What...
...is Avi's intention, to close in the next four hours or not? hydnjo (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to, but I would prefer one or two other bureaucrats to drop a note first. -- Avi (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Avi, methinks that after 60 hours of your skillful case management, your notification to your fellow 'crats by both email and noticeboard that anyone willing to stick their necks out on this difficult case has already done so... hydnjo (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * addendum - my oversight error: ... or, has been unavailable to do so. hydnjo (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wrong. Remember that we (the bureaucrats) are not paid for our editing here, just the same as everyone else, and that Wikipedia, wonderful as it may be, is just a website. Oddly enough, there are things out there that are more important. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How dare you not spend Thanksgiving on Wikipedia? :) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Current 'crat tally
Correct me if there are any errors. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Close as "successful"
 * Avi
 * 1) WJBScribe
 * 2) Warofdreams
 * 3) Rlevse
 * 4) EVula

Close as "no consensus"
 * 1) Anonymous Dissident ("amenable to a pass")
 * 2) Dweller
 * 3) Kingturtle
 * 4) The Rambling Man

Indecisive/Recused
 * 1) Bibliomaniac15
 * 2) MBisanz


 * AD said he would be "…amenable to a pass, though [he] stand[s] behind everything [he] said earlier." -- Avi (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If this continues like that, then we will need some sort of superbureaucrats to determine outcome of bureaucrat discussion about RfB :) --Staberinde (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there anyone who's that in tune with the nature of consensus? Maybe the big bureaucrat upstairs... :) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 4/Bureaucrat discussion/Bureaucrat discussion becomes a real bluelink, I might go mad... EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 21:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And then Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 4/Bureaucrat discussion/Bureaucrat discussion. :( hydnjo (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that MBisanz is not at all indecisive - he recused himself because of a potential "double" COI. He is obviously in favor of promotion. hydnjo (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ? I don't see that at all; as I understand it, he doesn't want to be put in the spotlight as the deciding bureaucrat. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, his "rugged good looks" aside. Anyway, I forgot to mention that Bibliomaniac15 recused for his support in the RfB and not wanting to be "slapped" ;) hydnjo (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway my now screweduppoint was that Bibliomaniac15 (support #2) and MBisanz (support #5) both support promotion but have recused themselves from this crat chat because of their support !votes. hydnjo (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware they've both voted in the RfB and recused themselves from the discussion. "Indecisive" here doesn't mean indecisive on whether to support the candidate; it means indecisive on how to close the RfB. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry 'bout that. hydnjo (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem...it's an easy mistake to make. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that Rlevse suggested the current tally is 6–3. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he's counting Anonymous Dissident's "amenable to a pass" as a successful vote.&mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 02:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because Mbiz and Biblio supported does not necessarily mean that they would support closing THIS rfb as a successful. Look at the above comments between myself and Ryan.  Ryan, the main opposer, indicated that he would pass the RfB as successful.  I, as a supporter, indicated that I was included to close it as a failure.  Mbiz and Biblio undoubtably would like to see Joe pass, but that doesn't mean that we can assume that they think THIS rfb shows enough consensus to pass.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 09:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Rlevse is correct and 'crat' tally is 6 to 3 but even if it were 5 to 4 the deadlock has now been broken! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Closing discussion
I think that we should allow Avi (off-wiki until Saturday night EST), the manager of this wonderful case to close (sorry Joe). hydnjo (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently no one reads what I write here because I've already stated several times that I'm fine with them taking their time, just to make sure they don't feel rushed into a decision. Not that my opinion matters or anything... ;) ··· 日本穣 ? ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Who the heck are you and why are you intruding here! hydnjo (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would tend to agree, except but Avi asked NOT to wait for him. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Too bad Avi. Some of us (including Joe) think that we'll wait for your return Saturday night to close this one ;) hydnjo (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I'm neutral on the issue. If they want to close sooner rather than later, I'm fine with that. If vice-versa, I'm fine with that, too. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, git.. we're makin' drama here! ;) hydnjo (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The suspense could kill one old professor - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hang in there man, this RfB will be studied by others as to how we settle our disagreements. The main thing that I see within it is the genteel  and respectful way that the commentary ('cept mine of course) has moved the discussion forward.  I've seen other disagreements devolve into crap discussions but this one hasn't. hydnjo (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You are right about the genteel and respectful way that the commentary has been handled. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just wait 'til Avi comes back Saturday night and realizes that nothing has changed and that he must close. Bet he wasn't expecting that! ;) hydnjo (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Normally, I'd be willing to respect the idea that the initiator of the 'crat chat is the one who has "dibs" on its closure. However, that's a formality, not something set in stone, and Avi specifically stated that he was comfortable with someone else doing the close. As a result, I've flipped the switch. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 16:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of this! – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If I remember rightly the past discussions like this one, it's been about 50/50 whether the bureaucrat who started the discussion also closed the RfA/B... WJBscribe (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad it was closed before I could come back; I know that if I were in Joe's shoes, I'd be uncomfortable waiting on tenterhooks for official word. -- Avi (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for a Job Well Done
To all the Crats: Thanks for the genteel and respectful way that the discussion has been handled. This is a watershed event for me. I'm encouraged by the wise way you worked things through. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I second the emotion. I wish my local/regional/national governments had debates discussions this civil.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, everyone, for your kind words. More importantly, thank you all for taking the time here (and elsewhere at times) to comment and discuss the issue, and to do so in about as respectful and cordial way I have seen in these discussions. Good points were brought up here (extension, etc.) and good analysis and commentary cannot but help the bureaucrats out. Thank you all again, but forgive me for hoping that the next zillion or so RfX's are more clear cut [[file:face-grin.svg|25px]] -- Avi (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I said it before and I'll say it again: I don't envy you guys when it comes to tasks like this. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  05:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)