Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 3: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:29, 3 June 2009

Nihonjoe

Voice your opinion (talk page) (12/9/3); scheduled to end 22:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Nihonjoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – I've been an active editor of Wikipedia since September 2005. Since May 2006, I've been an active admin here and participated in a wide range of admin activities (Xfd, CSD, DRV, the occasional AIV, etc.), as well as participating in various policy and guideline discussions which caught my eye, and participating in RfA and RfB discussions (though more often than not, I don't always weigh in on all discussions even though I do follow them quite regularly). I also follow the discussions on WT:RFA regularly even though I only rarely offer an opinion there. I have also helped with OTRS issues, regularly answering questions sent in via email, as well as beginning to help with permissions messages (I wanted to make sure I knew what the process was before handling any of them).

I've made edits on too many language Wikipedias to count (I have accounts on over 200 of them), and I'm in the middle of a major contribution to expanding Japanese coverage on Wikisource (it's a lot of work transcribing a book!). I've also made a decent number of contributions to Commons, including moving many properly licensed images from the Japanese and English Wikipedias to Commons so they can be used by all WMF projects with access to Commons.

I was last here at RfB over two years ago. During that time, I have greatly expanded my knowledge of policies and guidelines, and helped (as noted above) in discussing potential and actual changes to them. I have a solid understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and a solid understanding of what it takes to be a good admin. I believe I would be a solid bureaucrat as well, and humbly offer my services as such. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A. The criteria to promote are for the bureaucrat to review all the comments and information within each discussion and then determine the consensus based on that discussion. While the general consensus is that candidates with 80% or more support will generally pass an RfA, this is not always the case. It's very important to make sure the discussion is thoroughly reviewed in order to determine the consensus and weigh all the arguments given in the discussion.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A. In such situations, it's important to review the discussion even more closely in order to make sure to gain a solid understanding of the consensus of those participating. In highly contentious nominations, this can sometimes be difficult and take some time, but it's important to make sure all arguments and concerns are understood so that correct determination of consensus can be made. Along the way, it is important to make sure any decision is backed by solid information about why the decision was made so that any questions regarding the final outcome can be properly and thoroughly addressed. When people raise specific issues regarding a particular outcome, it's important to treat their concerns with respect and answer them in a direct manner, without any sidestepping of the issues.

3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A. As stated above, I have several years of experience applying those policies and guidelines, and I think I have applied them with fairness during that time. I have participated in numerous talk page discussions across all namespaces (some more than others), and I try to work toward amicable and reasonable outcomes. While I certainly don't agree on everything with everyone I've worked with (I would be concerned if I did), I try to work through any disagreements and come to some sort of conclusion which is acceptable to everyone involved. This requires give-and-take on the part of everyone involved, but I don't think that's a bad thing. I am certainly not perfect, but I apologize when I'm clearly wrong and I try to be friendly and work with others in a generally positive way. We're all here to build an encyclopedia, and that's my main goal here: to help make Wikipedia the largest and best encyclopedia on the planet.

4. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on any other forum during the course of nominations and especially when making a decision? And to discuss issues of promotion or non-promotion only with other bureaucrats, in their talk, or at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard where such discussion would be transparent?

A. Yes to the first, and yes to the second unless the issue being discussed would unnecessarily invade the privacy of the individual concerned. These cases would likely be extremely rare, though.

5. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?

A. Yes, and I regularly visit all of them. As stated above, I tend to lurk more than participate in the discussions on the associated talk pages unless I have strong opinions one way or the other. I think, for a bureaucrat, it's more important to closely observe such discussions than it is to constantly participate in them (though I have no problem with those who do constantly participate).

6. Do you pledge never to promote a person with whom you are affiliated?

A. Yes, as that would be a conflict of interest.

Optional question from Dank

7. You mentioned "candidates with 80% or more support will generally pass an RfA, this is not always the case." Are there any RFAs that got 80% or more where you would have recommended "no consensus"?

A: I don't know that I have any specific discussion in mind. The "80%" is just a general observation which is generally true.

Optional question from Aitias

8. Please explain how you would have closed the following discussions:

A: Well, seeing as I !voted in some of them, I'll have to defer to the decision made by the closing 'crat on these as my opinion is very clearly in the discussion itself: FlyingToaster 2, Ryulong, Everyking 5.

For the Orlady discussion, I think this was very close, and I think the closure could have gone either way and been valid. I probably would have closed it as no consensus, but I respect Anonymous Dissident's closure as valid.

For the Smith609 discussion, this one (again) was very close and the closure could have gone either way. In this case, I would have closed it as successful for the reasons expressed by bibliomaniac15.

For the Rootology discussion, this one (again—you seem to have picked a lot of them like this) was very close. In this case, it was closed with reasoning that we need to forgive editors who have shown they are turning over a new leaf. While I agree with this idea, I also find many of the comments voicing concern over how soon it was after he was unbanned to be compelling and I likely would have closed it as unsuccessful due to how close it was, how serious the raised concerns were, and how recently he was unbanned.

For lustiger seth, this one is difficult. He basically needed the tools for development-type reasons (working with the WP:SBL), If it weren't for the admin status on dewiki and meta, I would have closed it as unsuccessful without any question at all. However, as he has been working on the same issue on other wikis, and has been trusted with the admin bit on both meta and dewiki, I agree with the reasoning given by Deskana in closing the discussion as successful.

I agree with the closing comments from WJBscribe on the Cirt discussion, and I would have closed the discussion in the same manner.

I would have closed the Zedla discussion as no concensus, and I'm concerned at the lack of any closing comments at all on this discussion. Due to the extremely low participation in the discussion (55 total participants who expressed opinions), I don't think there were enough people expressing support for the nomination to make a valid successful closure decision.

The Number 57 discussion was a difficult one. While some of the concerns raised by those opposed to the nomination, there was clear evidence of canvassing against the nominee (whether those doing the canvassing thought it was canvassing or not). I think this one could have gone either way, and while I likely would have closed it as no consensus, I can understand how it could also be closed as successful. No closing comments on this one concerned me as I think that any potentially controversial closure should have a clear explanation of why the final decision was made, as well as the thought process behind the decision.

I would have likely closed as unsuccessful the LessHeard vanU discussion as I do not believe a sufficient support was shown to justify a successful closure. This discussion was very close, however, so I do not fault the successful closure.

I remember the Carnildo discussion quite well. I would have closed it as unsuccessful as there was very clearly no consensus for a successful closure despite the various attempts at reasoning offered by Taxman and others. While bureaucrats are given some leeway when making decisions which are close calls (such as most of the ones listed here in this question), I do not believe this closure fell anywhere near the leeway allowed for such closures.

I would make no changes to the unsuccessful close of the Aitias 2 discussion as I don't believe adequate support was shown to support a successful outcome. The concerns raised in opposition were valid and carried a lot of weight in this discussion.

The Avraham 2 was close, as noted in the Bureaucrat discussion (which I think was a very good idea in this case). If I had been participating in that discussion, I would have closed it as unsuccessful as well. I think the reasoning offered in the linked discussion is very well thought out and a valid interpretation of consensus.

I agree with the closure of the Ral315 discussion. While bureaucrats have some discretion interpreting "close" discussions, I don't believe this discussion falls within that "gray area". I don't believe sufficient support was shown for a successful close.

On the Quadell discussion, I don't believe sufficient support was shown. While I believe many of the oppose opinions were somewhat weak, I think this was offset by the number of support opinions which offered no explanation for the opinion. Therefore, I don't believe sufficient support was shown for a successful close.

I agree with the reasoned discussion on the closure of the Riana discussion. The oppose opinions expressed were very clear and valid (as opposed to being frivolous), so they carried a lot of weight in the final decision. I believe the the issues raised in opposition were significant enough to support the unsuccessful close of this very close discussion.

The Andrevan3 discussion was a close one, and could have been closed either way. I would have held a discussion with other bureaucrats (such as those used in some of the other discussions mentioned here) in this case in order to determine proper consensus. I think this one was close enough to warrant such a discussion.

That was a lot to go through, and I hope I've answered the questions sufficiently. It's difficult being asked to second guess previous decisions made, especially on discussions which were quite close and could have gone either way. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Links for Nihonjoe: Nihonjoe (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Edit summary usage for Nihonjoe can be found here.
Promote Nihonjoe (bureaucrats only)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

Editing/admin stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support Has the needed experience. -down load ׀ sign! 23:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. You are an extremely experienced editor and administrator which leads me to support. The only worry I have is your lack of actual participation at WT:RFA and on RfAs themselves. I will assume good faith and believe that you are lurking, though I hope you will take a more active role at RfA in the future. Malinaccier (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - trustworthy admin. PhilKnight (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Malinaccier. LITTLE MOUNTAIN 5 23:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly: my interactions with Nihonjoe have always been positive, and I have no problem with him being a bureaucrat. Also due to what I said here. Acalamari 23:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Switched from neutral. Sure; seems trustworthy upon further evaluation. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as candidate has never been blocked and as in the literally dozens of AfDs the candidate closed in which I commented, only 4 closes were incorrect, so judgment overall is sound and thus would probably trust to close other consensus reaching discussions such as RfAs. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per A Nobody and Malinaccier. tempodivalse [☎] 00:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I have several reasons to believe that this editor is suited for the bureaucrat tools. 1) Long-time editor and admin who has a proven track record of thoughtfulness and fairness; 2) Active participation in XfD indicates that Joe (if it's ok to call him that) has solid experience in determining consensus; 3) Answers to the questions indicate that Joe has a decent understanding of the role of a 'crat and will not promote a candidate without thoroughly thinking things over; 4) Not so much a reason to support in itself, but participation at WT:RFA is not, in my honest opinion, a good criterion to oppose an RfB over. Very few things are ever accomplished on that page — the discussions revolve around generally trivial issues that mean very little in the scheme of things. I lurk there too, and I also rarely participate in discussions unless they are interesting enough to me. But back to the point, Nihonjoe is no fool, and I'm pretty sure we can trust him not to break Wikipedia as a 'crat. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Joe appears to have an excellent track record as an editor and an admin. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not a controvercial admin as far as I know. Also an excellent track record. --Kaaveh (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, passes the clue test. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

You simply are not very active at all in the areas you wish to work - namely RFA, which is all that matters really (I don't care for clerking at CHU, or hanging out at bot requests - it's RFA that is the most contentious area). It's all very well watching them, and I can understand why you wouldn't want to take part, but I don't believe I've ever really seen you (at least recently) get involved, which shows a sign of interest. Sorry. And please don't just get active on RFA just for the sake of passing RFB next time, because that will be frowned upon by many. Either you're interested or you aren't, and you just don't seem to be. Majorly talk 22:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Majorly. Lurking is one thing, active participation is another. I am struggling to remember any valued input at WT:RFA and WP:RFA - and for a bureaucrat, that's just not a good sign. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 23:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most bureaucrats don't hang out at WT:RFA and comment on everything. The most important thing for a bureaucrat is to be aware of the discussions and any change in consensus on policy, guidelines, and procedures so that any actions are in accordance with current policies, guidelines, and procedures. As I said, I tend to lurk and only comment when I have a really strong opinion on a particular topic. Most of the time, others have already stated an opinion which matches my thoughts on an issue, and theirs is generally better worded than mine would have been, too. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As noted by Majorly, you don't seem to be active at RFA and related pages. If by your third request for the shinier tools, you still don't seem to have shown a consistent and well-grounded interest in RfA and its processes, this RfB only looks like hat collecting. Sorry, but I do not trust your judgment. ÷seresin 00:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
#~~Per the points explained by Majorly, Wisdom89 and Seresin above. Sorry. — Aitias // discussion 01:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)~~ Changing to support. — Aitias // discussion 12:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Also, please note that I might reconsider later on in case of an outstandingly good answer to my question. — Aitias // discussion 02:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if my answer is outstanding, but it sure took a while to review all those discussions. Thank you for the opportunity to review them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per this and this, you've never edited WT:Bots/Requests for approval or WP:CHU, and others have mentioned the RFA situation. I don't think you've made a case for what you'd be doing as a crat. - Dank (push to talk) 02:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I expect a crat to be very well-known in the community and to firmly have the trust of the community. I don't have an opinion about Nihonjoe since I've never heard of him/her before, so from my point of view I don't know if either point is necessarily true. I have much higher expectations from a crat candidate than an admin candidate. I expect a crat's contributions have already told their story of why they should be a crat without having to do any research. Sorry. Royalbroil 04:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we must not edit the same articles that much, or participate on similar pages. Given that there are over 2.9 million articles on WIkipedia, and over 16 million total pages across all namespaces, it's not unusual to run across other editors (even admins) who you haven't heard of. I suspect that will happen more and more often as the encyclopedia continues to grow. Feel free to review my contributions as I feel they do speak for themselves. Thank you for your comments. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest with you, looking over the oppose rationales from your first two RfB's I have to say I'm shocked... some of those reasons were pretty lame. That being said, there was an undercurrent in them that said, Joe doesn't have experience in the areas where 'crats work. He doesn't work there and doesn't have a footprint in them. You've run for 'crat twice, you've been told that you need experience in the areas where crats work. You claim to monitor RfA/RfB's so you should know that people want to see experience in those areas, yet you haven't prevailed it upon yourself to gain that experience? I was going to pose it as a question, why? But I decided that if you really wanted to work in these areas, then you would have gained a some experience therein. You would have taken to heart the comments from previous RfB's questioning your preparation for the tasks at hand. You would have taken to heart the objections posed to others who have failed their RfB's. The fact that you have not done so says that you didn't listen to the community's voice when it speaks or you don't care. Looking at your edit history, I see somebody who is incredibly silo'ed in his edits. 80 plus percent of your edits relate to Japan. Almost all of the AfD's I saw you involved with were on Japan. If you exclude the month of May, where you participated in a handful of RfA's, you've only been involved in 2 RfA's in the past two years! I'm sorry, but if you are interested in a job get some experience and desire to work those jobs. The fact that you have virtually no experience in any of the areas where 'crats work has me wondering why you want to be a 'crat?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So in order to "have experience", I need to post a lot to WT:RFA, or participate in every/most RfA and RfB? I don't think posting comments on that page or posting a comment to every RfX shows any more knowledge of how the process works than posting an opinion on an AfD shows knowledge of the AfD process. There are people here who oppose every candidate for no reason, or for bizarre reasons such as "we have too many", or just because the person is feeling contrary. I don't think these people have a true understanding of the process or they would be posting a valid and more specific reason and actually trying to determine if the person was familiar with a wide range of policies, guidelines, and processes. The processes involved in acting as a bureaucrat are fairly simple: review RfX discussions to determine consensus and then close the discussion accordingly; review requests for username changes to determine if they are within policy and then respond to them accordingly; and reviewing information on bot requests and information and recommendations presented by the BAG regarding pending bot requests and make the changes in bot status accordingly. The job of a bureaucrat, in almost every way, is far simpler than that of an admin. The only difficult part is determining consensus on particularly contentious RfXs (the other parts are pretty straight forward, IMO).

To sum it up, I don't think posting a lot of comments to the talk page or to a lot of RfXs necessarily means the person in question has a good grasp of the applicable policies, guidelines, and processes, and I know the processes very well as I've had years of experience working with them and applying them as an admin. Stating that I have "virtually no experience" in these areas is just not true. Rather, the criteria you are using to assess my knowledge and experience is based on what I believe is faulty reasoning. If you have specific questions which you think would accurately determine my knowledge and experience, feel free to add them above and I will answer them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First, let me say that as an admin, I don't see anything wrong. But after reading Majorly's oppose v!ote, I am swayed to oppose. Sorry. America69 (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Lack of visible experience in the areas 'crats work in. Nihonjoe, posting at RfA, T:RfA, all the rest might not show that you know the policies, but it provides a way for the community to check you know the policies - the same reason we wouldn't give a user with 500 edits the tools. Yes, they might be excellent edits, but with such a small number it is difficult to make sure that the person grasps all the relevant policies. Of course, if you spent time around RfA, you'd know this. I note that a similar point was brought up in your last RfB, and that this is a point you have obviously failed to address. We wouldn't promote an admin who failed to address points from a previous RfA, yet alone a 'crat. The problem with your attitude (well, the main one, there are several) is this - as a bureaucrat, you will be required to judge community consensus in RfAs, weeding out opposes based on complete bollocks and making a decision when consensus is on a knife-edge between "yes, we want him as an admin" and "no, we don't want him as an admin". The idea that a prospective admin or 'crat should be experienced in the areas in which he or she wishes to work is an accepted one, and I don't like the idea of RfA yea/nay decisions being made by a man whose opinion of what is or is not needed for a potential admin or bureaucrat runs completely against the grain of what the community feels. I've probably phrased this all rather badly, but I hope I got my opinion across. Ironholds (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

You seem like an excellent and experienced administrator, and I've seen you around quite a bit. That said, I share Majorly's concerns. Judging by your contribs you've only been active at RfA for the past month or so, and before that, you rarely ever participated in 'crat-related areas. While I don't view this as something to oppose over, I'm afraid I can't support. Hence, neutral for now. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've participated quite a lot more than that (having been here for 3½ years and all, with over 50K edits), but until the last month or so, I'd had a long spell where I didn't have the time to participate as much as I'd like (due to heavy involvement in creating and improving the actual encyclopedia content of the site). I still watched the page and read through may of the noms. Recently I've once again had the time to participate as often as I have in the past. So, yes, in the recent past, I haven't participated as much, but I have plenty of experience in this area. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but should this request succeed, will you still visit and/or participate in RfA? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. And I won't close any RfAs in which I participate, either. :) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good then, moved to support. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Can't make up my mind. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 00:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: 'crat tools are not necessary for editing/creating content which is what this user seems focused on right now (as above answer to Juliancolton, emphasis on editing skills, and lack of 'crat related experience inc. on WP:RFA demonstrate). Coldmachine^Talk 07:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (leaning to support) I have no doubt in my mind that this candidate can continue to be impartial and objective as a crat. What I do mull over though are the points raised by the opposing !voters. I went through the candidate's (great) contributions but I could not find a single comment made to WT:RFA, although RFA is an area they want to work on (while I know that WT:RFA does not have the best reputation, it is useful to evaluate one's knowledge of that area). I did notice the candidate !voting is several RFAs though. But while I agree that adminship is not a big deal and one important question is whether the candidate for it might abuse the tools, I do not see much help for the candidates in !voting support only based on these two aspects (while it might be flattering for the candidate to know that you trust them, it's not really feedback they might find useful). That said, I really cannot evaluate the candidate's knowledge in the crat related areas (especially RFA) at the moment but I hope they can provide further insights by answering further questions ~~(like Aitias' question #8)~~ (stupid edit conflicts, still, I'm not convinced yet, will think about it further...). Regards So Why 08:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can see my contributions to WT:RFA here and here. While I haven't posted a lot of comments, I have participated when a topic catches my eye (which isn't all that often, apparently). You can also find comments regarding me here and here. I don't think regular posting on WT:RFA is necessary to understand how the process for RFA and RFB works. I've participated in enough of them and followed the discussions enough over the last 3+ years that I understand the process just fine. It's really not all that complicated a process despite what some people seem to think. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might not be complicated but standards and expectations, as well as sentiment, at RFA have changed significantly since 2007 and I just cannot evaluate if you are "up-to-date" (so to speak) on those changes based on your contributions from 2 years ago. Regards So Why 09:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I've indicated here a few times, I regularly follow the discussions, but see no need to post regularly if I have nothing to add which hasn't already been posted. If you wish to remain neutral, that is your choice, but I want to make sure you are basing your opinion on something other than a perceived lack of knowledge or experience. I understand that the RfA process has changed since 2007 as I've been here on the site that whole time and I've followed the changes. I don't think I'd call it "significant" though, as the basic process has remained mostly the same during that time. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 10:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is the point, since you have not contributed in that area since 2007, I really have nothing to evaluate you in that regard, thus I will remain neutral until further discussion here or elsewhere convinces me to !vote another way. I might ask you some questions, too, once I figure out, what to ask that is. Regards So Why 10:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 106: / Line 106: @@
 #:Most bureaucrats don't hang out at WT:RFA and comment on everything. The most important thing for a bureaucrat is to ''be aware'' of the discussions and any change in consensus on policy, guidelines, and procedures so that any actions are in accordance with current policies, guidelines, and procedures. As I said, I tend to lurk and only comment when I have a really strong opinion on a particular topic. Most of the time, others have already stated an opinion which matches my thoughts on an issue, and theirs is generally better worded than mine would have been, too. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 23:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 #As noted by Majorly, you don't seem to be active at RFA and related pages. If by your third request for the shinier tools, you still don't seem to have shown a consistent and well-grounded interest in RfA and its processes, this RfB only looks like hat collecting. Sorry, but I do not trust your judgment. ''÷[[user:seresin|seresin]]'' 00:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
-#Per the points explained by [[User:Majorly|Majorly]], [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] and [[User:Seresin|Seresin]] above. Sorry. —&nbsp;[[User:Aitias|<span style="font-family: 'Georgia', serif; color: #20406F;">''Aitias''</span>]]<span style="color: #999;">&nbsp;//&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Aitias|<span style="font-family: 'Georgia', serif; color: #20406F;">''discussion''</span>]] 01:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
+#:<nowiki>#</nowiki><s>Per the points explained by [[User:Majorly|Majorly]], [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] and [[User:Seresin|Seresin]] above. Sorry. —&nbsp;[[User:Aitias|<span style="font-family: 'Georgia', serif; color: #20406F;">''Aitias''</span>]]<span style="color: #999;">&nbsp;//&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Aitias|<span style="font-family: 'Georgia', serif; color: #20406F;">''discussion''</span>]] 01:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)</s> <small> Changing to support. —&nbsp;[[User:Aitias|<span style="font-family: 'Georgia', serif; color: #20406F;">''Aitias''</span>]]<span style="color: #999;">&nbsp;//&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Aitias|<span style="font-family: 'Georgia', serif; color: #20406F;">''discussion''</span>]] 12:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC) </small>
-#: Also, please note that I might reconsider later on in case of an outstandingly good answer to my question. —&nbsp;[[User:Aitias|<span style="font-family: 'Georgia', serif; color: #20406F;">''Aitias''</span>]]<span style="color: #999;">&nbsp;//&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Aitias|<span style="font-family: 'Georgia', serif; color: #20406F;">''discussion''</span>]] 02:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
+#:: Also, please note that I might reconsider later on in case of an outstandingly good answer to my question. —&nbsp;[[User:Aitias|<span style="font-family: 'Georgia', serif; color: #20406F;">''Aitias''</span>]]<span style="color: #999;">&nbsp;//&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Aitias|<span style="font-family: 'Georgia', serif; color: #20406F;">''discussion''</span>]] 02:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
-#::I don't know if my answer is outstanding, but it sure took a while to review all those discussions. Thank you for the opportunity to review them. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 07:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
+#:::I don't know if my answer is outstanding, but it sure took a while to review all those discussions. Thank you for the opportunity to review them. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 07:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 #Per [http://toolserver.org/~thebainer/contribs-by-article/index.php?username=Nihonjoe&namespace=5&page=Bots%2FRequests+for+approval&database=enwiki&action=Go this] and [http://toolserver.org/~thebainer/contribs-by-article/index.php?username=Nihonjoe&namespace=4&page=Changing+username&database=enwiki&action=Go this], you've never edited [[WT:Bots/Requests for approval]] or [[WP:CHU]], and others have mentioned the RFA situation.  I don't think you've made a case for what you'd be doing as a crat. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 02:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 #'''Oppose''' I expect a crat to be very well-known in the community and to firmly have the trust of the community. I don't have an opinion about Nihonjoe since I've never heard of him/her before, so from my point of view I don't know if either point is necessarily true. I have '''much''' higher expectations from a crat candidate than an admin candidate. I expect a crat's contributions have already told their story of why they should be a crat without having to do any research. Sorry. '''<font color="#000000">[[User:Royalbroil|Royal]]</font><font color="#FFCC00">[[User talk:Royalbroil|broil]]</font>''' 04:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)