Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 2
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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 Nihonjoe 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)
- 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)
- 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 Nihonjoe 03:39, 22 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. — Deckiller 20:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Here's the link: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_14#Poll_on_making_all_sysops_bureaucrats 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)
- I vote we do that :) Be prepared for the opposition to it... Majorly (hot!) 20:41, 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)
- Here's the link: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_14#Poll_on_making_all_sysops_bureaucrats I think we should move this to the main RfA talk page. Majorly (hot!) 20:34, 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)
- I know! All admins are bureaucrats! Been suggested before, why not try again eh? Majorly (hot!) 20:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- But what are we going to do about it? --Deskana (fry that thing!) 20:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)