Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jbhunley

Jbhunley

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (131/65/12); Scheduled to end 14:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination

Jbhunley (talk · contribs) – I've expressed interest in Jbhunley (JBH) running an RfA for about a year. He's been around for about 8 years but really taken an interest in the back-end of things in the last three. He's a regular at New Page Patrol and has contributed substantially to the direction of that project, including essays such as User:Jbhunley/Essays/Identifying nonsense at NPP. While he's not a major content creator, he has created a number of perfectly fine short articles such as Innocenzo Leonelli and cleaned up Uebert Angel to avoid the threat of deletion. He has said that the experience has taught him exactly what sort of empathy adminstrators should have towards those who write the encyclopedia.

JBH has contributed significantly to the debates at ANI; don't let alarm bells ring about that, because when he contributes there, he keeps an eye on closing discussion down in an amicable manner that can satisfy everyone. He always talks a good argument at AfD; even when the result doesn't match his !vote, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Olsson (3rd nomination), he stated his view eloquently and also pointed out he would respect the consensus. Or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orly Sade, he clearly shows he gave WP:BEFORE a good go, and withdrew the AfD as soon as somebody managed to get a more positive search result. The main point I take away from these is that JBH's communication is excellent, and that's a major requirement for an administrator. He has it in spades. I hope you agree. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Alex Shih

It is my honour to co-nominate Jbhunley (Jbh) for adminship, and to supplement Ritchie333's statement above. Jbh has been registered since 2010 and started editing actively in 2015. Before their temporary break from editing in April 2017 due to injuries and real life commitments that followed, their invaluable contributions to WP:NPR has significant impact that led to the success of WP:ACTRIAL. While Jbh is not a content editor, they have the resources and are capable of well-researched writing. It may appear that they spend considerable amount of time at various noticeboards. But I am confident to say that Jbh has never been guilty of drive-by commenting, something that is the main contributing factor to the toxic atmosphere of these noticeboards. A random sample of three diffs ([1] [2] [3]) can serve as examples of Jbh's commenting style, which are thoughtful and sensible, also with knowledge and insight that helps to bridge opposing sides and bring the discussions to an end. This is consistent with Jbh's contributions and excellent style of communication across other areas of the project.

While I have always seen Jbh's name around, I think the first personal encounter was when I was pinged for input over an aspect of the RfC they were drafting. When I pinged them out of the blue to ask for their assistance over another RfC, their response was incredibly constructive and helpful, far beyond the expectations for someone unfamiliar with the subject (DYK). I was really surprised actually, because I mostly work in DYK, and yet the observation about DYK made by Jbh was so on point that I did not have much further to add. Even by this observation alone, I think Jbh will be a good, if not model, administrator that presumably many of us are all looking for, which is being intelligent and kind. Please let them help us. Alex Shih (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both for the wonderful nomination statements. It is very nice to know people have appreciated my contributions here. I am sure in the coming week there will be editors who do not share your good opinions. I will learn from their criticism as well but it is pleasant to start out so positive — I accept your kind nomination.

I have not edited using any other accounts. (There is a User:JBH that edited in 2005 that is not me). I have not been and will not be a paid editor. Jbh ^Talk 21:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: First off, I actually like back-end maintenance so I will likely do work in clearing CSD and closing AfD. I believe my record demonstrates that I have a good grasp of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Since I have not done many other administrative functions, I do not know what I will enjoy and be good at. Whatever areas I work in I will approach with care. As can be seen on the pages linked from my work space when I was learning CSD I would annotate the log to keep track of why something was declined so I could learn the difference between what I thought was appropriate tagging and the consensus view. I stopped annotation long ago but I pay attention to any declines and I still keep track of my AfD nominations so I will know why I was wrong or what I missed that led me to withdraw a nomination.

Beyond the basic maintenance, and I recognize saying this may cause reticence in some editors, I am interested in working in conflict management. That means the sensitive areas like AE and ANI. How behavioral issues are managed or resolved pretty much defines the editing environment and I believe I can make a positive contribution there. I have complained about administrators making bad calls or mishandling a conflict. I bet we all have but most of us do not really have a 'boots on the ground' understanding of making those calls. I intend to get that experience and understanding and then see if I can help improve things. I know this is not an area to go charging into making rash decisions. I know it requires care, a bit of empathy and respect for community norms and that is how I will approach it.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Well, I am pretty proud of User:Jbhunley/sandbox/Ignatius of Jesus. It is not finished and may not be by the time this RfA starts but I have enjoyed working on it immensely and it gives me a glimpse of what those editors who are capable of contributing their own work must feel about their creations.

I am also rather happy about how a situation which Rzvas^{{noping}} criticized me for at my WP:ORCP turned out; I was involved with mediating between some newish editors who have very strong POV on the ethnicity of certain historical Islamic figures – starting at Mubariz al-Din Muhammad. I saw that Farawahar^{{noping}}, one of the editors involved and who I argued against at an SPI where she was trying to ban one of her opponents, had opened a complaint at ANI on another matter and was rapidly mobbed by a group of editors working in concert. (This group was later topic banned from the related area as a group and this incident was mentioned in the AE thread as illustrative of their tactics.) These editors had worked to turn a reasonable complaint into a boomerang calling for an indefinite block. The whole thing was a shameful abuse of our conflict management processes and was described as an "uncharacteristically vicious discussion" and a "pile on" by Seraphim System^{{noping}}.

Farawahar had some behavioral issues but she is a good faith editor, maybe a bit disruptive at times but far less than many in that area and willing to learn and that, in my mind, coordinated and vicious mobbing is something we should be ashamed of. Events like it intimidate editors, prevent them from engaging in behavioral dispute resolution until things become unbearable, and ultimately causes the loss of editors either through a toxic editing environment or because we ban them. I often hear cries of "witch-hunt" and "lynch-mob" at ANI and, like most, I usually discount them as hyperbole but this event reminds me that sometimes those cries are real and need attention. I believe that in participating in that thread on Farawahar's behalf I prevented the loss of an editor and hopefully helped make the editing environment less threatening for her by showing someone will step in even if that someone does not always agree.

I bring these events up not because I enjoyed the drama but because they illustrate two times, an SPI and an ANI, where Wikipedia was on the verge of loosing editors and I feel I had a material role in preventing that loss. In both cases it required engaging with the wiki-process they were caught up in; passionate POV editors who wanted them gone; and with the editors themselves by explaining what behavior of theirs was an issue, how to address the issue and providing neutral support.

Editors are not perfect and most people who come here do so because they want to edit about something they are passionate about. In some areas those passions are often quite strong and in opposition to someone just as passionate about their truth. Some will adapt to Wikipedia's editing expectations, some will not and some will become disruptive pests who make everyone else miserable. It is important to recognize and support those who can learn to participate here. We even have a policy, WP:AGF, which directs us to do so. It is also important to expeditiously remove those who are being repeatedly disruptive from the environment they are disrupting. Regrettably, except in clear cut cases, we have no consistently applied policy for that. We do not even have a solid consensus on how to go about it. I am pleased with those times my contributions at "the drama boards" helped resolve individual cases one way or the other. Whether as an administrator or not, I hope my future contributions aid in resolving future issues with as little trauma as possible for all involved.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Very early in my editing here I unwitting stepped into what is now American Politics 2. Which crystallized around Project for the New American Century and my naive attempt to find a compromise which resulted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush|. My first and only ANI report was shut down rather rudely and three months into my editing here I found myself a named participant in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others. This experience got me very interested in conflict management on Wikipedia very early in my editing career.

I learned how it feels to be passionately involved in an intractable conflict where the other parties "just don't understand!" – at least from my perspective On reflection I also learned no matter how fervently I believe a policy should be applied one way there can be equally or even more valid or accepted arguments to the contrary. In this particular case, were I examining the above AfD and based on several more years experience, I would agree with the delete !voters.

As to how this affected how I handle editing conflicts now – I make sure to argue the opposing side, at least to myself, just as hard as I argue my position. When/if I convince myself of a differing position I change my mind and admit it in the discussion. I think this is most apparent in my AfD nominations. If I miss something or someone makes a point I did not consider I withdraw the nomination of change my !vote. In most cases at AfD this is as a of finding foreign language sources but in one recent case, Articles for deletion/Umar haque, it was possible, by looking for arguments against my position to help with the compromise which resulted in 2018 London "army of children" plot.

Finally, as to stress management; not much gets to me for more than a little bit. When I am annoyed I usually spend quite a bit of time using Show preview to make sure my response is appropriate and well crafted. I disengage and go do something else long before I get to the point of telling someone to "f--k off". Beyond that, I am very used to separating my personal ideas from the policy/rules I am working under/enforcing; my feelings/opinions from my actions and recognizing when that is either not possible or gives a reasonable appearance of not being possible.

4. The issue of my break in 2017 came up several times at WP:ORCP so I will give the answer here which I gave there:

I fence with big, heavy swords and injured/re-injured myself a few times.The last was pretty serious and really took the wind out of my sails. I'm still doing PT but I have been able to concentrate much better over the last several months and am generally back to where I was at the beginning of last year. That said, I completely understand why people would worry about the editing gap. All I can really say is I have no plans to drop off the face of the Earth but I do sometimes push my training a bit harder than is wise which can put me out of commission for a few weeks now and then – I'm pretty heavily motivated to avoid that happening though

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Neovu79

5. Thank you for applying. If you were to be elected as an admin, would you support a system of reconfirmation of your admin privileges in order for you to remain an admin? Good luck in your RfA.

A: Thank you. I do not think I would support a general reconfirmation requirement although I do believe there should be some way to insure administrators who have been inactive as an administrator for some period of time have an adequate grasp of Wikipedia policies and how they are currently applied.

While I do not think a automatic requirement for reconfirmation would be practical or overall positive I strongly support the idea of some sort of community recall procedure. Since the community has repeatedly failed to gain consensus for such a process I have been looking into ways to give create a process where individual admins can obligate themselves to a recall with some teeth. A draft of my initial idea of what such a process might look like and how it could be implemented is at User:Jbhunley/Essays/Binding community recall. Jbh ^Talk 16:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Nosebagbear

6. You have a high quality AfD history, but in a significant number of your nominations, you've withdrawn after additional sources have been found. While this demonstrates excellent "AfD sportsmanship", do you think your WP:BEFORE checks when nominating have/had been lacking, and if so, do you think you've improved?

A: I always make I solid efort at BEFORE although I have made a couple straight out screw-ups e.g. forgetting about Rotten Tomatoes or missing an entire open search window. In general I understand BEFORE to be a reasonable rather than exhaustive search and I pride myself on most of my BEFOREs being closer to the later than the former.

Looking through my AfD notes the vast majority of cases where I have withdrawn based on new sources being found the sources have been in non-English language press. I have learned to make a special effort to search non-English press, and non-English spellings, in cases where it might be appropriate. I suspect though, the majority of my future AfD withdrawals will continue to be due to other editors finding non-English sources. There will be fewer as I find more resources but I firmly believe that if I can not verify material in an article to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria then neither will most of our readers and the article should be discussed at AfD. Jbh ^Talk 16:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Nihlus

7. Should the community be concerned with your lack of experience (or lack of recent experience with UAA) with multiple pivotal administrative areas including but not limited to WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, WP:UAA, and WP:SPI? Why or why not?

A: I have made use of all of those forums as a user when I encounter a need for them. To give other RfA participants easy reference: I have made several SPI reports (See Jbhunley/SOCK log; One hundred and eight edits to UAA; Twenty (ten in 2018) requests at RPP; and sixteen edits to AIV

I do not generally do recent changes patrolling so I do not encounter situations requiring intervention at those pages as often as others might. As an administrator I would spend considerable time familiarizing myself with current practice before taking administrative action in any of those forums. Just like anything I do I would keep track (in these cases privatly) of my decisions and why I made them so, should I make errors, I can learn from them. I started keeping decision logs here mostly out of real-life habit and I have found them quite useful to aid in avoiding the repetition of mistakes. Jbh ^Talk 17:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Zingarese

8. Dear Jbhunley, thank you so much for your application for adminship. My question is in regards to the CSD. Would a new article like this meet criterion A7 for individuals or musicians? Why or why not?

A: No. In this specific article there is a credible claim of significance -- "... won the silver medal Saturday in the Van Cliburn International Piano Competition ... " -- in [4]. I suppose a lazy tagger may have marked it as A7 because there is no claim in the article itself but one should at least look at the sources before tagging and at least do a cursory search for obvious material before accepting an A7.

A new article like this one i.e. with just the article text but not the sources would be a valid A7 tag . Depending on one's familiarity with the CSD tagger, it might be a good idea to quickly Google the subject to check for low hanging sources which would allow easy conversion into a stub before actually accepting the tag and deleting it. Jbh ^Talk 17:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

9. What is the difference between "Extended confirmed protection" and "Semi Protection"

A: There is the obvious technical difference in that semi-protection requires an account be autoconfirmed or confirmed to edit the page, while extended-confirmed protection prevents accounts which are not extended-confirmed i.e. with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure from editing the page.

I assume, however, you are speaking of the difference in application of the two protection levels: In general semi-protection is useful when dealing with IP and/or drive by disruption. It also raises the bar for and delays disruption from serial created SOCKS or flash-mob/brigading efforts enough to often calm things down before things get further out-of-hand; On the other hand extended-confirmed protection was originally an ArbCom imposed remedy for cases where much of the disruption was coming from much more dedicated people/groups to whom 4 days and 10 edits was not a bar or where it was thought new editors must have gained a better understanding of Wikipedia and its processes before they edit in a contentious area. Now administrators may, at their discretion, apply ex-conf protection to articles outside of those WP:ACDS topics where ArbCom mandated its use. Because this level of protection prevents a much larger proportion of active editiors from editing a page care must be taken before choosing to use ex-conf. There is a specific requirement that ex-conf may only be used if semi has failed and things can not be calmed down by other means such as blocks, and if a DS area, bans. There is also a requirement that AN be notified when a page is placed under extended-confirmed protection but that seems to be handled by bot now although I suspect it would be wise to open an AN thread if the protection is likely to be controversial. Jbh ^Talk 19:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Additional questions from Hhkohh

10. If you are an admin, a sock nominated an article or commented in an AfD or tagged an article for CSD or PROD, what action will you do?

A: This is really several questions so I will give you several answers. In each case, to avoid an unwieldy branching decision tree, I am answering assuming the tagging was correct and I first notice the edit only after it has come up in an administrative queue/category.

• In the case of the CSD I would assess the validity of the CSD. Just because a SOCK tags a COPYVIO, Attack page, or other CSD-able article does not all of a sudden make the tagged article not a violation of our content policies.

• In the case of a PROD I would only be seeing it as an admin once the PROD had expired. For an expired WP:BLPPROD, again, it still violates our BLP policy regardless of who tagged it. For a regular WP:PROD I would assess the reason given but would tend to give it extra scrutiny based on the nature of the SOCK and would tend to be more skeptical of accepting the tag.

• The AfD question is in two parts: First I would strike/discount a SOCK's comment in an AfD discussion. In the second case, a SOCK's nomination, there are many possible outcomes but they are boil down to is the AfD viable if the nomination statement and all SOCK comments are struck? Within the limits I placed on my answer I first see the nomination when the AfD ends up in /Old. In no one had commented Delete on the AfD I would Speedy Keep otherwise I would treat it as any other AfD where the nominator had Withdrawn their nomination – which is analogous to having the nomination struck due to socking.

I hope this addressed what you were looking for. If not please feel free to ask a follow-up question on a single case where you would like clarification. Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 20:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

11. Who can grant NPR or Autopatrolled (or other) user rights in your opinion?

A: The ability to grant user-rights is not a matter of opinion it is limited, by the Media-wiki software, to holders of certain advanced permissions – Administrators, Bureaucrats and Stewards. English Wikipedia has policies and guidelines which advise and constrain when and to whom these groups of users may grant advanced permissions. Jbh ^Talk 20:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up: When someone request NPR or Autopatrolled (or other) user rights, when do you accept or decline requests? Hhkohh (talk) 04:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

A: The general answer is; when, in my assessment, that editor has met the stated criteria for being granted that right and I believe their use of the right will be a 'net positive' to the project. If you have a question about how I would assess a specific user right I can provide more detail. Jbh ^Talk 14:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Andrew D.

12. I looked through your AfD record and, while most of it seems unremarkable, the nomination of Russians in France seems outstandingly bad because that's quite a notable topic – see here, for example. Please explain what was what going on in this bundle and how you came to select particular émigré communities for deletion.

A: That series of ... in France articles was created by Sockpuppet investigations/Ghumen. Since it was 33+ months ago and I can not see the articles I can not comment on what drew them to my attention initially although, since the 'Russians' article is near the end of the series in my log it was likely nominated with less scrutiny than the earlier ones as part of the clean-up. While a bit over half of these articles have been recreated in the intervening time they were all deleted at AfD. Looking at the !votes it seems many editors went through and voted the bundle (I did not know how to bundle an AfD at that time so each article has a separate AfD) so individual articles may not have received the same scrutiny they would have had the topics been nominated weeks apart. Jbh ^Talk 13:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Additional questions from Lee Vilenski

13. You signed up to Wikipedia in 2011, but only edited around 100 times before 2015, where you had 10,000 edits in the year. Outside of your break in 2017 (as answered above), why did you take up Wikipedia at this time> This is more of a question of character, but I like to know more about any potential admin's passion.

A: I had been reading talk pages and later noticeboards like ORN etc for quite a while before I started regular editing. I did and do like to know what went into a Wikipedia article I am reading. As I remember I saw an IP at, I think ORN, in a dispute about whether to describe the genetics of a horse breed as Splashed white or not. I kind of saw what they were getting at but they were not getting their point across to Montanabw^{{noping}} so I joined into the discussion. I'm not really a genetics person but I know enough to understand the sources, nor am I horse person. I had such a great time learning about horse genetics, digging through books and the net to get my point across and interacting with Montanabw that I was hooked! Jbh ^Talk 13:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

14. At what level would you consider a new editor to be editing in bad faith? I deal a lot with new editors through WP:AfC, and often they aren't familiar with our policies.

A: I have dealt with a lot of new editors through NPP and the bulk of my talk page involves discussions with them. I generally have a pretty thick AGF skin but a couple of things will throw me. First there is the obvious stuff, obvious bad faith is obvious. Beyond that I have little to no good faith for undisclosed paid editors (UPE). How much good faith really depends on how they respond once I know someone has pointed WP:PAID and WP:COI out to them. I have a bit more GF for disclosed paid editors but I feel they should be going out of their way to demonstrate their good faith to the community. Repeated promotional editing is a flag to me as well.

I tend to judge an editor by how they recover from their mistakes and how they behave once they know what they are doing is problematic. Everyone screws up, sometimes spectacularly. Heck, when first started editing regularly I came across this big RED button which said "Press to delete an unsourced BLP" complete with instructions on what to put in the PROD. I pressed that button a lot – 163 times according to my PROD log – because why would there be a big red button if it was not supposed to be used? Right?

I am convinced the only reason I did not get blocked or end up at ANI is because when editors showed up and pointed out that 95+ percent (most were pro sports players as I recall) of those PRODs were inappropriate I stopped, apologized, and immediately started cleaning up the mess. That experience is in the back of my mind every time I deal with an editor I see as disruptive or I think is acting in bad faith. It informs my assumptions and, usually, tempers my responses. Jbh ^Talk 14:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Additional questions from GRuban

15. Please comment on this diff brought up below. (Yes, way below. In the bad place, though at least one person is supporting based on it.) You started an arbitration case with "This event is, in the scheme of things, pretty insignificant." and later "I have no objection to this being disposed by motion.", both rather calm statements, but by the time of this diff seem to have become ... emotional, to the point of writing about being unable to control yourself. Please elaborate, especially on how this affects your being an administrator. --GRuban (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

A: Thank you for asking this. First off I strongly disagree with the characterization that this statement somehow documents a loss of control. If I had lost control I would not have stepped away. I would have continued to berate the committee, with increasingly cutting language, for failing to sanction an administrator who had, per my evidence, unquestionably misused their tools; who refused to engage with ArbCom at all; and who, it came to be known, had already avoided a case about potentially involved actions via a motion [5];. To me that is a massive failure of the trust we place in ArbCom as the only venue to air grievances against administrators. I did not do that though. I stepped away. If people are concerned that I wanted to berate the committee, well… that is a different thing.

At the time I made this statement ArbCom was well on their way to effectively endorsing INVOLVED behavior. This was not my opinion alone; per one of the Arbs, Alex Shih "I cannot see how stepping back in this case would be a form of de-escalation, as it is effectively and will be an endorsement of their conduct regardless of the stern wordings that have been uniformly expressed." [6] So, yes. I was getting upset but continuing to hammer on what I saw as fundamental failures would have contributed nothing positive to the outcome and, considering OR had already accused me of violating WP:POINT (Which occasioned the other quote in Oppose below), would have quite possibly resulted in me being blocked. So, rather than doing that, I stepped away though rather later than it seems many would have preferred.

Once all that is left to contribute is one's views of other's fundamental failings in their duties rather than a difference of opinion or interpretation it is time to step away. I recognized I had reached that point. I dropped the matter and have not revisited the issue until now. Yes, I could have phrased things better and I recognize I should take more care to withdraw earlier. I, quite firmly, believe that when editors are considering whether I would make a good admin or not is that they note I recognize my limits and generally stay within them. Jbh ^Talk 17:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Amakuru

16. Several oppose votes below are citing a lack of content creation, yet we're told in the nomination above that you've created "a number of short articles", including two that are mentioned. In order to better assess this, please could you give us a rough idea of the number of articles you've been significantly involved with, (i.e. is it just a handful, or tens, or hundreds?) and maybe some other examples of any good work you've done in writing articles?

A: Hmmm... I have touched a lot of articles as a result of NPP or threads at the various noticeboards. The vast majority of those are either specific issues or to clean up an article so it meets Wikipedia content standards. By that criteria I would say, off-the-cuff, somewhere in the low hundreds i.e probably more than 100 and probably less than 200. I do not keep a record of this type of thing but here are some before and after diffs: Gopinath_Panigrahi; Hiddensee treasure; Eddie Astanin (had been incorrectly BLPPRODed); Profiles in History; Harrod UK; Mea Allan.

The articles I have created are Innocenzo Leonelli, Giulio Leonelli, Mutatesia Leonelli, a translation from it:wiki of Sorbolongo (these are all related to my Ignatius of Jesus draft) and, using material from a a BLP redirected at AfD 2018 London "army of children" plot. The PNAC list article I created years ago and mentioned elsewhere was simply extracted from the PNAC article so while I was responsible for its creation and content I did not write it. I hope this helps your assessment. I would be glad to answer any follow-ups. Jbh ^Talk 16:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from MPS1992

17. According to a Wikipedia administrator, you discussed this Request for Adminship on an external site during the RfA, and later requested of the administrator of that external site, that they change the status of that discussion, as to who could view what you had said or requested. As a Wikipedia editor who does not have an account on that external site, I still can't see what you -- and others -- said there about this request for adminship. If you are appointed an administrator here, and people involved with that external site later make a request for you to do something here in return -- how would you handle such requests, and who would you tell?

A: @MPS1992: I requested the thread be moved into a section which is not indexed by Google because an editor from here had made a post shortly after the thread was opened which accused me of antisemitism/antisemitic editing. The accusation was blatant enough that two (2) posters there commented there about my possible antisemitism - one of whom thought I should make an explicit denial if it were not true. Accusations of that type have real life implications and since they are grossly untrue I did not want them showing up when someone Googles 'Jbhunley' (there is more than enough info on-wiki to link this to my full name and probably address) as I said, that stink can stick.

I made no comment off-site about any editor's !vote as can be seen by the copy of the post (see Oppose #11 or this diff) which elicited the accusations on the talk page. I quoted my response (from WO) to the accusation (on WO) of attacking the !vote in Neutral #5.

If you would like I can paste my posts from that thread in a sandbox sub-page or email you copy/paste which has the other participants posts as well. If you want screenshots you can contact me via email since it is not possible to send attachments via Wikipedia email. (Please leave a note here if you ask for email to keep everything transparent. Although it would be much simpler just to register on WO and read everything for yourself) I have nothing to hide and I give anyone who feels the need permission to post any of my comments from that thread here with one proviso; it must be the entire post and context of what it is in response to must be provided.

The other parts of your question seem to imply you think that moving that thread out of view is some service for which I could feel obligated to provide some quid-pro-quo – that is a fundamental misconception. I assume you do not have much knowledge of that site. It is not some troll farm. There are many active Wikipedians there including administrators and sitting Arbitrators. However, in the case of an editing request from anyone, on-wiki or off I will always abide by WP:MEAT and WP:PROXYING i.e. I will never make an edit that is not in my own editorial judgement a good edit. Further, I will not take administrative action based on improper off-wiki contact. There are however some cases where it is proper to take action based on off-wiki contact such as in cases of harassment or private/WP:OUTING information but I assume you are not envisioning such cases in this question. Jbh ^Talk 01:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional questions from White Shadows

Thank you for applying to become an admin. As someone who went through this process many years ago and came up short for a number of reasons, I know how difficult and stressful it can be. We certainly need more admins and I'm glad to see you're eager to step forward!

18. Looking at your edit count, barely 20% of your edits have been to Wikipedia's main space, while a plurality of your edits are to user talk pages. How important do you consider content creation to be to the success of Wikipedia?

19. What do you think your biggest mistake has been since joining Wikipedia, and what have you learned from it?

Discussion

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Jbhunley
• Requests for adminship/Jbhunley/Aux01
• Requests for adminship/Jbhunley/Aux02
• Requests for adminship/Jbhunley/Bureaucrat chat

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Support

1. Support as nominator Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Support- one of the most insightful and knowledgeable people active at AfD currently. Reyk _YO! 14:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
3. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 14:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
4. Support This is a good candidate for the mop, and I see no reason to oppose the candidacy. EggRoll97 ^(talk | _contribs) 14:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
5. Support not a jerk, has a clue. Disagree with him on some things, but overall would be a massive net positive for the admin corps. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

   Support No major concerns, radiates clue, good communication skills. Bonus points for swordfighting prowess. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC) withdrawn Yunshui ^雲_水 15:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

6. Support Should be a useful mop wielder! Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} ^(Whisper...) 15:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
7. Support Seen 'em around the parish. Also support on the grounds that Jbhunley has a sensible signature. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

   Unlike some people here! :) :) :) 209.51.172.142 (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

8. Support Seems like a kind and thoughtful user, and has demonstrated that they would make good use of the tools. I'm not really concerned about the lack of creating articles - participating in AfDs and patrolling new pages demonstrates knowledge with the notability guidelines just as well, imo.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
9. Support- I crossed paths with JBH a few times and I've always found him to be level headed, experienced, and thoughtful. I have no doubt that he will make a fine admin.- MrX 🖋 15:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

   Regarding Jbhunley's mild rebuke of Opabinia regalis in the RFAR, my views align with Nick's in #79 below.- MrX 🖋 14:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

   Support has a good clue; no possibility of abuse, so why not? —usernamekiran(talk) 15:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Moved to oppose. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

10. Support – Clueful and levelheaded. He should make a good admin. Mojoworker (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
11. Support - Support, largely because I like his response to question 2. Good-faith editors try very hard to remove their emotions from their encyclopedic writing, but understand that this is sometimes more difficult than we realize. The collaborative spirit among editors is one of the things that really makes Wikipedia fantastic and the joviality surprised me when I started editing just about two months ago. Jbhunley seems to want to foster that collaborative spirit while helping good-faith editors learn how to improve Wikipedia for us all. Being able to tell the difference between a disruptive editor and a good-faith editor is key to fostering the kind of community Wikipedia needs and, as Jbhunley explained, that process takes careful research. As I Support, I hope Jbhunley will continue to devote an appropriate amount of time and care to that task. Ikjbagl (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
12. Support - I recognise that he's not been as active as I would have liked, but can't see any reason to oppose. Deb (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
13. Support. Editor has no edits in the "MediaWiki talk" space, which normally raises an enormous red flag, but I'm willing to overlook that this one time. Just kidding, this one is great. bd2412 T 16:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
14. Support - Candidate demonstrates an interest in areas that need more eyes, strong communication skills, and a helpful attitude. User will make a welcome addition to the admin ranks. —C.Fred (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

    Support - Just seeing the name "Jbhunley" is enough for me, yes please. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Moving to oppose, sorry. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

15. Support, as I have no concerns about JBH's suitability for the mop corps. Vanamonde (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

    Having read a number of comments from people I respect in the "oppose" section, and further noting that this RFA is drifting into the discretionary range, I wish to reaffirm my support. I was following the case when it took place, and I've refreshed my memory from the diffs provided below. I do not think that comment disqualifies JBH from adminship at all. He saw an incident he believed constituted abuse of the tools; he brought a case to ARBCOM (a case which, several members have acknowledged, had merit, even if a desysop was not required); and when he was unhappy with how it went, he disengaged. In doing so he did not express himself well; but his choice to call it as he saw it and then move on is actually encouraging, and makes me believe he will be an asset as an administrator. Far more drama is caused by an unwillingness to let things go and to agree to disagree, than by occasional intemperate language. If I had any doubts about that, they are addressed by his response to Drmies below. Vanamonde (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

16. Support - Per noms, has clue, massive net positive. Tazerdadog (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
17. Support - We need more admins that have good communication and thoughtful comments. Lack of content creation doesn't concern me in this area. Being a good admin only requires understanding and empathy for content creation, as well as an understanding and appreciation of what it takes to build the encyclopedia. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
18. Support someone I’ve already held high respect for, espically after calling out protonks obnoxious attack on GMG, and for being a voice of reason at ani.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 16:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
19. Support. Meets all reasonable criteria, nothing negative raised. Ifnord (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
20. Support - Complaints about limited creation experience seem unwarranted. Recent RfAs seem increasingly accepting that targeted experience (including ANI, which is notoriously messy to navigate) is more beneficial than lacking creation experience is damaging in most fields. A little deletionist for my liking, but no reason to think that would affect their AfD or CSD interpretations. As their nom self-withdrawing indicates, they are clearly capable of admitting when their argument is incorrect, which is a characteristic we should encourage more in our admins. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
21. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

    Raffirming my support. In spite of the valid concerns raised by several opposers, I still believe that Jbhunley would be a good administrator. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

22. Support No reason not to. Natureium (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Adding that I don't think the arbcom situation that has been brought up is a strong enough reason to oppose. I don't think his response was unreasonable, and when weighed against the rest of his contributions, it's a very small concern. Natureium (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
23. Support. JBH is helpful and insightful. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
24. Support - Excellent candidate, No issues, Good luck :) –Davey2010^Talk 17:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
25. Support Has clue and will be a large benefit to the project with the tools. Best, Spencer^T•C 17:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
26. Support based on what I saw at the candidate's recent poll. Airbornemihir (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
27. Support Seeing this nomination made my day. JB is already an asset in conflict resolution with very astute and intelligent comments. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
28. Support. This was an easy support decision for me as soon as I saw the RfA. I've crossed paths with the candidate numerous times at various policy-related discussions, and I have always been pleased by his helpfulness, thoughtfulness, and his grasp of how policy works. Even when we have had (slight) disagreements, I have always found that his input elevates the quality of the discussion. I have no doubts about his understanding of the content creation process, and I am sure that he can be trusted not to overreach. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

    I've commented about this in the General Comments section, below, but I would also like to add a few comments here. I want to affirm that I still support this request enthusiastically. I've described below why I think the ArbCom comment needs to be considered in context, and that it's not as black-and-white as it might sound taken as a diff in isolation. But I also want to observe that whatever happened during that ArbCom case does not constitute a pattern over a many-year tenure as an editor. If the candidate had made a habit of making comments like that, I would have opposed. But this was an isolated case that is not representative, and RfA should not be a gotcha exercise. Also, I think that the candidate's reflections on the incident, here in this RfA, demonstrate that there is not going to be a pattern. I'd rather have admins who become indignant over mistreatment of editors than admins who put the most value on being part of "the team". --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

29. Support: I normally like to see more content work from a prospective admin, but I've had the pleasure of interacting with JBH in several locations (not least the uphill slog at Uebert Angel). His work doing BEFORE at AfD is quite similar to the trials and tribulations of content work, so he's not bereft of all content experience. Most importantly, he has "clue" and there's just no substitute for that. --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
30. Support Net positive, clueful editor. Most importantly, JBH seems to have an excellent demeanor and a very good attitude about editing and contributing to the project. I stay away from ANI as much as possible because there aren't enough folks like JBH there. Additionally, the arguments he's presented at a random sampling of AfDs are indeed quite well-reasoned and supported, and I think JBH would be good and judging AfD consensus. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

    Nearly everything I wrote above is still true, and in particular I think JBH acquitted himself fairly well in response to tough questions, especially question 17. I disagree strongly with a number of oppose !votes (particularly the content-related ones) but there is enough there from folks I greatly respect to give me pause. I stayed here in support having acknowledged those reservations, but this whole request has turned into a giant mess, and I don't feel the candidate is entirely blameless. More to the point, engagement with WR or WO or whatever the next incarnation is/will be is a massive red flag for me. I'm disappointed that other editors are apparently likewise engaged there, but that is not for today. I'm not opposing JBH, but I'm no longer supporting. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

    Restored per Alex Shih. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

31. support very good candidate--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
32. Support What's the old saying? I thought he was one already? :) An excellent candidate. To Jbhunley directly; you indicated you want to work in conflict management. Be cautious what you ask for; you just might get it. The best intentioned treading into such areas can find themselves burned out rather rapidly. I caution you that if you should feel this coming on, to take a step back for a time, and recharge your conflict management batteries. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
33. Support of course. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
34. Ricasso Support. I'm especially impressed by how many AfDs the candidate withdrew after being presented with additional evidence. The ability to change one's mind rather than clutch one's first impression like a string of pearls is highly important. --GRuban (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC) After Q15, still support. Recognizes his limits: if a bit dramatically, still better than not. I'm actually quite fond of Opabinia Regalis, but that doesn't have to be a transitive closure. --GRuban (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
35. Support meets my criteria. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 19:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict)
36. Support - An ideal candidate. I will feel safer coming to the admin noticeboards with such a careful editor there. Daask (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
37. Support - Seems to always have level-headed helpful insight during discussions. Exactly the kind of editor I want with the mop. Thanks for volunteering! Ajpolino (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
38. Support. Clearly qualified. 72 (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
39. Support - worthy of the mop, is an absolute net positive for the project. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
40. Support. I believe this to be a good candidate who will benefit the project. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
41. Support - No-brainer. I have to keep reminding myself that Jbhunley isn't an administrator already. Kurtis ^(talk) 20:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

    Reaffirming my support in light of the opposes. While I think that Jbhunley sometimes lets his frustrations get the better of him, it's not enough for me to oppose him over. Kurtis ^(talk) 01:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

42. Support - Fully qualified. I was particularly impressed with his excellent clueful participations at ACTRIAL and all things NPP/NPR and I hope he will come back to those areas when he has the mop. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
43. Support – A level-headed, articulate, open editor who actually wants to learn about and take part in conflict management? Yes, please! — Gorthian (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
44. Support - Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 20:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
45. Support We often disagree, but he always has a well-considered view. Will be an asset. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

    As one of the arbs who voted against that case request, I want to be clear that I don't see it as a factor toward opposing. Our job here isn't to decide whether we always agree with Jbhunley (I usually don't). Our job is to decide if he'd make a good administrator. The arbitration case request shows that Jbhunley takes a very strict view of the standards to which we hold administrators. How is that a negative exactly? In my opinion, that just suggests that as an administrator, Jbhunley would hold himself to the highest possible standard. That's a very good quality in an administrator. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

46. Support talk to !dave 20:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
47. Support enthusiastically. Yes Sir! It is about time. Very keen you have you with the mop, I hope this goes well. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
48. Support – Jbh seems to be a clueful, knowledgeable editor. His comments at the noticeboards have always been on point and focused on solving the issue at hand rather than causing more drama. The opposes so far are unconvincing. –FlyingAce^✈hello 20:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
49. Support - the good reasons have all been taken, but I'll be unoriginal and say "He has a clue." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
50. Support – Good luck.--Mona.N (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
51. Support - Helpful, thoughtful, and clueful in my experience. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
52. Support very experienced, no problems at all Atlantic306 (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

    Support Why not? -FASTILY 21:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Moved to oppose, sorry -FASTILY 21:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

53. Support - Good candidate. Lack of content creation is not an issue, not for me anyway. Orphan Wiki 22:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
54. Support I've seen him around and I've always found his contributions sensible and clueful. Vexations (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
55. Support. Alex Shih (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

    They could have chosen a less confrontational style, be more mindful of their tone of voice, and be more graceful when realising they have irreconcilable differences with another editor/side, particularly for someone that would like to help out in dispute resolution. Has Jbh not reflected on all of these criticisms constructively? We have a fully qualified editor with years of experience that are willing to take on more responsibility, but yet here we are once again being punitive because they have shown character rather than complete submission (temperament concerns), have shown willingness to push for action and accountability and actually partially succeeded (poor conduct), in addition to being unafraid of showing transparency by continuing to respond to Collect rather than just overlook their response completely from the beginning (poor behaviour). Do we really have the best interest of the project in our hearts by denying yet another well-intentioned candidate based on these factors? On a more controversial thought, I am particularly disheartened once again by those whose minds are easily swayed in RfA after seeing another familiar name with different opinion from theirs. As a community we should champion our diversity of opinions; we can agree to disagree as long we respect the final consensus, but I fail to see the need for conformity. Alex Shih (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

    This is a very good statement, in particular the points about character and transparency. I'm sure had JBH been silent here we'd be raking him over the coals nonetheless. I still think the engagement over there is in poor taste, but this is a very good statement. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

56. Support - I see many good reasons to support and no significant ones to oppose. I've been favorably impressed by them over the years. I do wish their content contribution percentage was higher, but other factors override that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
57. Support. The so called lack of content creation is a positive, hardly a negative. Some half of his edits involve conferring with other wikipedians, or on project pages or various nuts and bolts topics which make this project work. Welcome Jbhunley. Moriori (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
58. Support. Though oppose #4 is not unreasonable, Jbhunley would clearly be a net positive. Thank you for running Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

    I want to clarify my comment wrt the A/R/C diff others have pointed to. The arbitration process is one of Wikipedia's most stressful, contentious, and frustrating areas; yelling at the committee sometimes feels like the community's collective pastime. While I wish Jbhunley had not made that comment, it reflects well on him that he disengages (or, at least, tries) rather than escalating the situation more than it was already. We don't expect sysops to be superhuman. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

    I think this is basically right. Poor comment to make, and even if one must, there are better ways to make that post. The sentiment behind it is commendable, and while the execution is lamentable it doesn't seem to be indicative of a pattern. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

    I agree that it was an ill-considered remark and should have been left unsaid or said differently. That I had reached a level of frustration where I would make that comment is precisely why I stopped participating. What I take away from this is to make sure I disengage before my frustration prevents me from exiting with grace rather than snark. Jbh ^Talk 01:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

    Be sure to watch out for Boojums too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

59. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 00:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
60. Support More content creation would be nice, but not a requirement. Matched consensus 85% of the time at AfD. Co-nom by two trusted editors and support by many more is telling. Haven't interacted with Jbh in my short editing career, but looks to be level-headed as anyone at the admin noticeboards. Definitely an asset. TeraTIX 01:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
61. Support I believe JBH will be a net-positive with the tools. Lepricavark (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

    While I stand behind my !vote, it is obvious that JBH has hurt his cause by engaging in a personal dispute with Collect during the RfA. I understand the candidate's frustration at observing the disingenuous behavior of an old foe, but admins frequently have to deal with editors who are acting in bad faith and/or have gone completely off the rails. Lepricavark (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

62. Thank you for the terrific answer to my question - precisely what I was looking for and further strengthens my support for your candidacy. Jbhunley's history reveals an editor very experienced and insightful in the areas he would primarily take part in. The limited content creation doesn't bother me at all; his vast experience in CSD and AfD show a user with solid insight of the policies& guidelines related to article content. I'm very happy to support.--Zingarese talk · contribs 01:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
63. Support Jbhunley has demonstrated a high level of competency at AfD and is a consistently helpful editor throughout the encyclopedia. As for content creation, Innocenzo Leonelli is a pretty good article and User:Jbhunley/sandbox/Ignatius of Jesus shows the potential for becoming an actual Good article and I encourage the nominee to pursue that. Then there is the ArbCom dispute. I believe that Jbhunley was correct in their critique of the behavior of the administrator in question, and I said as much in that discussion, although I did not believe that a desysop was called for. Yes, they expressed frustration quite forcefully but only in the context of withdrawing from further debate, as opposed to doubling down. I consider that a good attribute for an administrator. If I were ever to use my mop in a content dispute where I was emotionally invested in the outcome, I would expect justified criticism. That was the point that Jbhunley was making, and I agree with it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
64. Weak Support I respect the two nominators & my standards are as low as TonyBallioni's, but I have some doubts about temperament for reasons discussed at oppose #4 & support #62. What tipped the balance for me was he appears to have insight into his own behaviour, as per comments by Hammersoft. Find bruce (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
65. Strong support  per the oppose comments below. He has a strong sense of Justice!!!! Also, screw content creation.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
66. Support - certainly seems like a worthy candidate to administer this project. - wolf 02:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
67. Support - My encounters with this editor have been in the realms of COIN and the Village Pump, where they never hesitated to offer helpful assistance. Many editors offer this help just in the forums and then leave it at that. But JBH is old-school, going directly to the articles and making changes based on their wisdom. I must admit, an editor like me can get spoiled making requests for information in a forum, only to return later on to find out my problem has been taken care of. That's executive-service assistance right there.  spintendo  02:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
68. Support per Kevin (L235). Double sharp (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
69. Support when I started editing regularly Jbh was someone I assumed for a bit to already be an admin. Will use the tools wisely. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
70. Support I'd like to see more content creation, but Jbh seems clueful and a good communicator, and wants to work in backlogged areas. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
71. Support Lots of clue, a decent record in some of the adminny areas, a very solid record at AfD, and no yellow or red flags. I concede that content creation could be stronger but given their other very positive attributes, it's not a deal breaker. The oppose !votes are not persuasive. I would also gently note that we are discussing a candidate for adminship for an online encyclopedia not some head of state or church. Experience clue and demeanor are what I tend to look for. Infallibility is not on my check list. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

    Reaffirming my support At this point my reaffirmation of support is purely moral. Yes, I can read the scoreboard. But I have to say I am really disappointed in some of the opposes. Given how high the bar is being set by some one would think outstanding editors were queuing up down the block for their chance at the week long inquisition. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

72. Support Given the editor's general demeanor and skill, I honestly am surprised they are not one already. Icarosaurvus (talk) 04:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
73. Support Enough experience in main space and articles' related areas; so no qualms about the opposing viewpoint of lack of content creation. I respect Courcelles' assessment; but I do not concur on the related inference. Jb is a normal human editor. He's expressed his honest opinions, and regretted them too. That's being transparent. I'd expect all administrators to be like that. I don't believe that should be a reason to oppose such an editor who has contributed significantly to the project. Lourdes 06:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
74. Support. Thoughtful and intellectually honest contributor in many discussions. I often disagree with his opinions, but that's not a reason to oppose. He has the ability to walk away rather than dig in, which is actually quite important. Guy (Help!) 08:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
75. Support per Abecedare, would have liked more content contributions though. Nick (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

    Nick, can you clarify what "Support per Abecedare" means? Abecedare did not support. Softlavender (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

    I'm supporting for the same reason Abecedare is opposing. I would have thought that was rather obvious, obviously not. Nick (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

    Abecedare's rationale for opposing was "I cannot get over their conduct and voice during the recent Arbcom request they filed. In particular, I am quite disappointed by the self-righteous, personal, and biting language they adopted towards User:Opabinia regalis. ... Given the recency of this conduct I cannot support the nomination at this time." So that is the reason you are supporting? Because of the candidate's conduct and voice in the recent ArbCom they filed, and the self-righteous, personal, and biting language he adopted towards Opabinia regalis? Softlavender (talk) 12:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

    Usually "support per X's oppose" (such as this) is a polite indulgence in AGF-compliancy...a way of being able to say, "Support because X doesn't know what they're talking about  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

    Not in this case, I'm supporting for the same reason Abecedare is opposing. Nick (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

    Yes, that's the reason I'm supporting. Opabinia regalis' behaviour as an arbitrator in that case is woefully below the level I would hope for (though I suppose it's at the level one expects from arbitrators today). I'm pleased to see Jbhunley openly criticising a sitting arbitrator and believe their assessment of the situation was very largely correct. Nick (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

76. Support, largely per the above. The candidate's comments at AFD and elsewhere show a level of clue that makes me think they would make a good administrator. And it never hurts to have more people working on the back end of things like NPP and such. Good luck. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
77. Support I've seen the candidate around, and overall I like what I've seen. The issue Courcelles raised is mildly concerning, but I still consider Jbh a net positive for adminship. Miniapolis 13:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
78. Support Took a little while to read through the opposes, but in truth I think where they find a flaw in Jbhunley I see strength. It's not easy to confront someone for making a mistake, and the response was more in line with "stop admonishing someone for a small error" when Jbhunley was right in his original assertion. Perhaps there is more that I missed, but it seems a clear cut case of calling someone out for using privileges (however minor) incorrectly, then getting frustrated when no one heeds your point. I'm more pleased he stepped away than pushed the point after you read the entire arb request. In any case, using that case as a reason to oppose ignores years of otherwise positive contributions to the site, clear net positive editor, so a support from me. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
79. Support Clear net positive. I looked at the opposes and I'm not convinced by any of them.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
80. Support precious "let's just leave it as is and avoid complications" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
81. Support: the edit being held up as problematic by several opposes shows self-knowledge and good sense, two properties that are essential for de-escalation of conflicts (and missing from many internet users). --JBL (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
82. Support I've seem them around plenty over the years and never had any concerns. I see no problems with the diffs presented below, and in fact praise them for walking away from a discussion that was starting to irritate them. SmartSE (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
83. Support I have seen Jbh around and I trust his judgement. As far as the arbcom case controversy, Cullen328's rationale is convincing enough for me. Dr. K. 17:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
84. Support. Knows what they're doing, and nothing I can recall has ever given me doubt as to competence, being here to work on the encyclopedia, or having any kind of persistent "attitude problem". This supposed smoking gun is nothing but someone being honest about their opinion that the process at hand isn't going to result in the outcome they seek, and a firm decision to step away from the dispute. These are good habits in an editor and an admin. I will certainly not penalize anyone for thinking WP:ARBCOM is sometimes bureaucratic and makes wrong-headed decisions; I don't think there are many editors left who feel otherwise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
85. Support - not completely without reservations regarding some of the things brought up by opposers, but certainly seems like a net positive (to be clear, though, regarding my reference to those opposing, deletion activities that so closely align with consensus is very much a check in the pro column, not a con) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
86. Support Following answer to Q15, satisfying enough concerns of mine to pass my RFA criteria. Iffy★Chat -- 18:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
87. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
88. Support - I found enough to change my vote from an "o" to a big ole "S". There was clearly a reason for giving Jb a barnstar in 2017. I also have faith in the judgement of his co-noms. What could possibly go wrong, Murphy? 😊 ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
89. While there isn't as much content creation as one would expect to see these days at RFA, the candidate appears to have a clue and there do not appear to be any issues I would consider deal breakers. Also supporting pe rRitchie333's nomination. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
90. I see nothing to make me believe that the candidate would misuse the tools. SQL^{Query me!} 20:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
91. Support - I haven't !voted in an RFA before, but JBH strikes me as a reasonable person to handle the mop. That's he's more concerned with maintenance than creation should be seen as a positive - all architectural marvels need janitors, and the mop is essentially a janitorial tool, not a creative tool. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
92. Support How dare you run for RFA while by back is turned, oh NPPer? ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
93. Support I think you are ready. CLCStudent (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
94. Support – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
95. Support Doesn't sound like there are any major problems with this user. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 23:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
96. Support, had me at afd, the more admins involved there, the better. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
97. Support Some interesting names and reasons in the oppose section. I've discounted those implying making the Arbcom case request was a waste of time - it wasn't. As to behavior, Arbcom sometimes has a tough job and occasionally screws it up or goes down the wrong path and should be called out (individually or as a group) when they do. Say your piece (forcefully if needed), respond if needed, and know when to disengage. I believe Jbhunley did that here, not perfectly, but within reason. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
98. Support per TonyBallioni, Tryptofish, BU Rob13, and SMcCandlish Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
99. Support Not concerned about arguments with ArbCom. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
100. support user would be very suited to the tools provided. Also seems very genuine. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
101. support Franko2nd (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
102. Support Language at ArbCom and lack of content creation not a big issue for me to not support. ~ Araratic | talk 07:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
103. Support Having looked at the stats and read Jbhunley's complete talk page, I think they would make a good admin. Jbhunley have admitted that they don't feel that comfortable creating content, although as time moves on, seemed to be more at ease with it. Although administration is a secondary function and content creation is primary, I don't hold it against Jbhunley, and I suspect more articles will be created in good time. Personally, I think he/she has a particular skill or bent for administration and it suits. Regarding the Arbcom comment, I'm not particularly concerned It leaked out. Lets move on. I hope they do well. scope_creep (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
104. Support - Chandan Guha (talk) 12:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
105. Support - I've seen the candidate around at several SPI reports where their arguments are clear and straightforward, and supported by good evidence; this bodes well for their conduct as an administrator. As for the supposed conduct issues that many opposers have brought up, frankly Arbcom needs to have administrators challenging their preconceptions from time to time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

     Reiterating support after considering new developments over the past several days. A number of editors I respect highly have commented in the oppose section, and with all the respect I can muster, I must politely observe that many of those comments read as though the candidate ought to be made a pariah for daring to challenge The Supreme Authority Of The Glorious Arbitration Committee. I find such a sentiment a disgusting abuse of a position of authority. There's also very obviously some group external to Wikipedia coordinating to influence the result of this community discussion, and they are being quite successful. I doubt whoever it is has the best interests of this project as their goal. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

106. Support Jbhunley is running for adminship in Wikipedia and not for a position as a professor of literature so I'm not concerned about their language. We need new blood as administrators, and unless solid arguments are presented, their behaviour can be judged after they get the tools. Go for it!--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
107. Support: Shortage of content creation isn't a problem; the nominee is seeking tools to help with precisely the back-end shopkeeping that they have spent most time working on.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
108. Support looks like they could do useful work.--Salix alba (talk): 17:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
109. Support per noms and Cullen. Don't see any reason to think JBH would be unreasonable with the tools. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
110. Support I ran an extensive analysis of my own interactions with this editor and I believe they can handle the mop. Notwithstanding the legitimate concerns raised by Courcelles, whom I also respect, I think that this user does have an understanding of WP and the way the place works. I think this user's occasional short-temperedness and minor tendentiousness is not a serious concern here, as they are able to listen to reason. They should have enough clue to recuse in areas where they have an emotional involvement and to fix their errors should they overreact. That said, it is important to wield the mop in a calm and dispassionate manner and particularly at first, be careful with all those shiny new toys! Montanabw^(talk) 18:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
111. Support, seems to care about the integrity of the mop. At the very least, I am confident the candidate will not use the tools when involved. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
112. Support. After reading through most of the oppose votes, I find myself ultimately unconvinced that there's actually a problem with temperament, or at least one serious enough to warrant opposition. We've demonstrated that he's lost his cool (or almost lost it) once, as if that rarely happens at ArbCom. It'd find it more concerning if this was his response the only time he had ever encountered drama on the project, but he clerks at the so-called "drama boads" on a regular basis. If there were really temperament problems, we'd have plenty more examples of them to work with. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
113. feminist (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
114. Very strong Support Very good understanding of the areas in which he intends to work. The objections do not seem justified:

     No admin works in every possible field any more than every editor does. And no admin starting out knows everything ,any more than every editor does. It's enough to know the basics in the critical areas, and be ready to learn from mistakes.

     Adminship is not article creation. The insistence upon excellence in both is what keeps people from trying to become admins. I have never written a long article; I have written very few fro scratch altogether, though Ive revised extensively a great many. (I had expected to write when I came here, but I found my skills used better in revising.) It's enough for an admin to have some experience, so they understand the problems,andknow not to expect too much.

     Various degrees of inclusionism among admins o not hurt the encyclopedia . No single admin's views will make a difference,, as logn asthey refrain fro msingle-handed deletions. Generally, we check each other and it balances out. The way to really have an effect on which articles get kept is to argue effectively at AfDs, not to close them.

     In the Arb Case mentioned, I support Jbh's bringing the case, and I think it showed his correct understanding of the role of an admin. . I said in my vote: "I do see [FPAS's actions] as a bright-line violation, and the persistence in defending it as an expression of contempt for community consensus. I do not think that asking for a case here was an over-reaction. " and "I wish there had been support for something stronger [than admonishment]. " My view was admittedly rather stronger than others on the committee. I wish I had been able to convince them. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

     The admonishment was a compromise; Jbh brought a clear case of poor accountability and mis-judgement of an admin that was supported by a strong community majority. If I was in a similar position as a regular editor, I can imagine myself reacting in a similar fashion if legitimate concerns were being dismissed as pointy exercise in rhetorics. Alex Shih (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

115. Support, would be a useful addition. Lack of knowledge in some areas is not an issue for me. Nigej (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
116. Support no concerns on my part. Jianhui67 ^T★C 12:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
117. Support, one issue out of many tens of thousands of contributions is nowhere near enough to render this person unsuitable to use admin tools, which as I keep saying, is not a big deal and is really not that difficult. I shall assume that the closing crat will be able make that distinction. Do I have concerns that Jbhunley would be a bad administrator? Nope. Fish+Karate 12:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
118. Support. Gamaliel (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
119. Support this trusted editor because this Wikipedian has 7 years' worth of experience, has new page reviewer rights, and has done lifting heavy at AfD. Bearian (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
120. Support: after looking into the main issues raised in the oppose section, I'm still confident that making them an admin will be a great net positive for the project. Good luck! ‑‑Yodin^T 17:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
121. Support I think he's good Default Character (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
122. Support Seems like they would be a net positive. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 03:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
123. Support as per User:C Fred - Candidate demonstrates an interest in areas that need more eyes, strong communication skills, and a helpful attitude Govindaharihari (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
124. Support per DGG and Alex.∯WBG^converse 08:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
125. Support I trust this editor with the mop. Content creation is a plus but we shouldn't deter people just willing to help lessen other people's workload. -- Luk ^talk 08:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
126. Support. I have previously expressed my concerns in the neutral section. However, the thread on the talk page showed the candidate has been the target of a smear campaign on Wikipediocracy. The candidate should be totally entitled to defend himself and his political position. All taken together, the candidate's behaviour is reasonable given the circumstances. Deryck C. 09:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
127. Support. I see pretty weighty opinions on both sides of the fence. We are expecting admins to be saints, but we are kidding ourselves if we think they really are saints. All we can hope for is that they are close enough to sainthood, even if they display signs of being human occasionally. I think Jbhulney is close enough to sainthood. I have seen enough of good work and good comments from him to support his candidacy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
128. Support I'm not seeing that the oppose evidence is sufficiently serious enough to negate the otherwise decent efforts made overall by the candidate.--MONGO (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
129. Support I've thought on this RfA for a few days now, and in light of the things I've read since writing my Oppose !vote (responses by the candidate on his talk page, a statement by Alex Shih, etc), I find myself hoping to see this RfA succeed. While I do stand by my opinions mentioned in my original oppose !vote (concerns with conflict management and etc), I cannot in good conscious oppose this candidate solely for their responses to drama resulting from this RfA. Best of luck, HunterM267 ^talk 17:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
130. Support Crossed paths in a heated debate, and was impressed by their demeanor and contribution. See nothing in the oppose column that concerns me as to the ability to handle themself appropriately with the mop. Factotem (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
131. Support - Seems eminently qualified. Nobody is perfect and Wikipedia needs more active admins. EnPassant (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Lack of content creation is striking especially for somebody who is editing for this long. Lack of involvement in admin areas such as WP:SPI is also concerning. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

   There aren't that many admins who work SPI (unfortunately), and there isn't much for non-admins to do there unless they are clerks. Jbh is one of the most clueful editors we have, and he is very much involved in policy discussions and other areas affecting admins.​ TonyBallioni (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

   dont want to gang-up, but Tony is right. Also, there are a lot more other venues where toolset can be used. Content creation doesnt need any privileges (other that being auto/confirmed), it is meek guideline to have experience in content creation so that the (soon to be) admin should know what content creators go through. CSD queue is getting rather slow these days and AfD is sort of backlogged too. The candidate wants to specialise/work majorly there. As there are no concerns/reasons to think that the tools are going to wrong hands, an admin who wants to spend much of his time in backlogged areas is nothing but a net positive. Kindly read is answer to the first question; lack in the content creation, and his activity in SPI wouldnt affect his tenure as admin at all. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

   I oppose use of the vote page to berate "oppose" voters. It is unseemly at best. Collect (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

   As do I. You will notice that I haven't commented on your oppose or any others, which whether or not I agree with them, I think are valid opinions. I do think it is important to point out, however, that there is virtually no work for non-admins to do at SPI other than file reports, and that most editors aren't going to go looking for socks, and really shouldn't be expected to. RfA is a discussion, so I'll pipe in on the opposes for things like that, but generally, yes, I agree there shouldn't be badgering. I just distinguish between badgering and responding to points on matters of fact like that. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

   I am not berating anybody. I simply explained that if an editor doesnt participate at all in SPI, and has very little content creation, even then that editor could make a good admin given their understanding of the policies, and their demeanour in general. I didnt even discuss about the vote, not sure how can this be considered as berating. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

   Content creation does require privileges other that being auto/confirmed. That's why we have admins. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

   The usual definition of "content creation" is creating and writing new articles, and expanding existing ones. What aspects of writing article content require admin tools? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

   When you go to move the page you created into the mainspace, you'll probably want the page mover right. You might also need to have a page deleted. Updating many of the templates requires the template editor function. I could go on for quite a while... Perhaps we should add this to the questions we ask admin candidates. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

   "Content creation does require privileges other that being auto/confirmed. That's why we have admins." - sorry, but how do you explain the hundreds of thousands of articles here created by non-admins? ^{(rhetorical question)} You don't need to be an admin to create articles, and shouldn't need to have created articles to be an admin. There are plenty of ways to demonstrate competence for the tools, other than article creation and plenty of areas to use the tools where article creation is not a factor. Those focused on the "creation vs deletion" numbers here are completely forgetting another, very important aspect; maintenance. - wolf 06:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

   In that sense, every activity would require special special privileges. For the examples you provided, any confirmed user can move pages. Deleting a page is not content creation, it is not creation of any type :D
   Like Premeditated Chaos said, usual definition of content creation is creating new articles, and expanding the existig ones. Updating templates is generally not considered as "content creation". —usernamekiran(talk) 15:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

2. Oppose Lack of content creation coupled with odd deletionist status at AfD are sufficient. Out of last 500 AfDs, he sought deletion of 376 out of 413 (rest not identified or miscellaneous) or over 90%. All in all, a justified Oppose. Collect (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

   Moved discussion to Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

3. Oppose - Someone who refers a misleading report about their content dispute in ANI [7][8] as a "reasonable complaint"[9] is far from making any sensible judgement. This is after when your 26% of contributions were made Wikipedia space (5% of them to ANI), and you have only 20.7% contributions to article space. You haven't exactly answered the question 2 but only spewed some incidents by presenting only one side.
   On ARC, you had made mountain out of a molehill by frequently requesting desysoping of Future Perfect at Sunrise over a trivial incident where he had self-reverted his admin action. You kept bludgeoning to the extent that you were asked to cut your statements[10][11] and finally you refused to get over the Arbcom decision.[12] This is not what we expect from anyone, let alone expecting it from admins. Rzvas (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

   I oppose use of the vote page to berate "oppose" voters. It is unseemly at best. Collect (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

   Are you accusing Rzvas of berating himself? Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

   No - thank you for noting. There is so much abuse of comments on oppose votes in recent RfAs that I tend to find comments in general are all too often argumentative in tone, and not utile in the discussion. Collect (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

   Fixed by adding {{pb}} tag. Rzvas (talk)

   Another example from Jbhunley:"Christ, if you are just going to keep putting the same promotional crap in what is the fucking point to trying to improve the article?"[13]
   Edit summary: "fuck it".
   Rzvas (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

   Relevant: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Simon_Mugava/Archive. --JBL (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

4. Oppose per [14] and conduct during that mess. Courcelles (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

   Thank you for pointing out that case. I was unaware of it. I hadn't voted yet, but I will now. (I am #66, under "support") Thanks again. - wolf 02:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

5. Oppose per what Courcelles has said above. Saying that you might not be able to hold your tongue does not fill me with confidence for you dealing with disputes etc.--5 albert square (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

   Knowing when to disengage and where your personal limits are is, I should think, precisely what we should want in a person dealing with dispute resolution. It is the people who fail to recognize these limits that frequently create the problems. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

   Yeah, I would think that knowing and understanding one's limitations would be considered a good thing in an administrator, not an impediment to getting the bit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

   It's also their conduct throughout it. But hey ho others are able to make up their own mind whether to vote support or oppose.--5 albert square (talk) 06:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

6. Oppose per Rzvas and Courcelles. Waste of time, indeed. ansh666 04:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Jbhunley is a valued Wikipedian and often helpful. However I do not believe he is suitable for adminship, as I've seen him make too many decisions that I have not considered helpful, and with temperament unsuitable for adminship. The recent behavior pointed out by Courcelles above and Abecedare below is a good and rather chilling example. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
8. Oppose regretfully. I like a lot of what I see with this editor and was looking forward to supporting them, but I cannot get over their conduct and voice during the recent Arbcom request they filed. In particular, I am quite disappointed by the self-righteous, personal, and biting language they adopted towards User:Opabinia regalis in this comment: I can quite easily come up with the words to describe my contempt both for your statement and, because you attack me from behind the impenetrable shield of being both an administrator and an arbitrator in this case, for you personally (they sensibly struck-out this part, and apologized, four days later), and Then, if I were one for pointy 'principled stands' over minor things, I would apply my creativity to crafting a case request against a sitting arbitrator. Since, regardless to your assertion to the contrary, I am neither that kind of person nor that kind of editor I will instead leave you with a single word upon which you may reflect — despicable.
   To be clear, I have no problem with JBhunley requesting the arbcom to take a look at that matter; that was perfectly fine. It is only the manner they went about it that I object to (contrast their language with how User:Writ Keeper made largely the same points). Given the recency of this conduct I cannot support the nomination at this time. Abecedare (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
9. Oppose. As described in detail above, Jbhunley's conduct was subpar throughout the arbitration case in question. In addition, the lack of content creation is concerning since administrators with lack of experience therewith tends to make bad decisions. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 07:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
10. Oppose per the diff provided by Courcelles. "I doubt I would be able to hold my tongue" is a red flag for me. Sorry. — sparklism ^hey! 14:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Content creation is less than I would like, but not a sufficient reason to oppose. This is. Jonathunder (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
12. Concerns with behaviour here and off-wiki. Looking through the candidate's dramaboard contributions shows a lot of comments (like this) focused on stirring up more drama rather than resolving the situation. As of now this request will pass, but please consider taking a different approach to mediation and conflict resolution when you are an admin. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

    @Ajraddatz: What sort of off-wiki behaviour are you talking about ? Nick (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

    It's surprising to find Ajraddatz in this section; with all due respect, I think a better example is needed. I think there is an unspoken rule that when the name of Jimbo Wales is invoked, certain degree of less serious (read: humour) posts are permitted. I do agree with the final sentence that Jbh should adopt a different approach if they become an admin, as I have expressed below in the general comments section. Alex Shih (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

    That's a good point. The off-wiki behaviour is partially described on the talk page; that combined with the ARC example above and some random examples I found suggested to me that the candidate might be very involved in blocking/sanctioning drama once they were elected, and I'm generally wary of supporting those sorts of candidates. That said, I've looked through more examples of AN/ANI contributions and found them to be generally positive, so when I get time I'll do a more thorough review and re-evaluate my position. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

    I generally will let stuff slide as I did when Collect made accusations on the talk page. I have learned it is generally best to ignore him. Since it has spread I will reply.

    The thread in question is WO and my post by me, in response to an accusation of Antisemitism, which occasioned the talk page post was:

    Collect and I get along like a house on fire - the flames roar until nothing is left :)

    Well I did bring up the ArbCom case in response to the mandatory "What conflicts have you been involved in?" question. Anyway he still seems to be nursing some issues because I, and *many* others, thought that he was full of shit for saying that by noting that lots of people from The Project for a New American Century ended up in the Bush II administration and considering that was worthy of note we had become the new face of McCarthyism. He can spout off in whatever way makes him feel better but I strongly suggest he not continue to insinuate I am Antisemitic in a public forum. Other than that I have zero interest in re-hashing a years dead dispute.

    I probably should have cut him some more slack back then. He had some serious family medical issues going on back then which I have regrettably learned more empathy for in the interim and I am genuinely sorry for meeting his outbursts then head on rather than more gently.

    (Removed paragraph on different topic. It is in the history if anyone is really curious)

    As I hope is clear the talk page mis-characterizes both the content and tone of what I said. I did, later in that thread, make a response which characterize Collect unkindly but I'm pretty sure anyone reading that thread would not consider it over-the-top. Jbh ^Talk 17:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 17:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

    I've had time to look this over more now, and I've struck my oppose. I think that Jbhunley makes overall positive contributions to the dramaboards, and the examples I found (and the ones referenced above) were more one-off incidents than a pattern of behaviour. Regarding your comments on WO, I was more concerned that you were engaging with them over there rather than the specifics of what was being discussed, but I suppose there is no correct response to off-wiki slander. Best of luck. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

    Reinstating my oppose. Being unable to respond well to stressful situations is one of the few things that makes me oppose someone at RfA. I was getting hints of that when I posted my previous oppose, but the further behaviour of the candidate during this RfA confirms my concerns. Wikipedia attracts a large number of odd and unsavory characters who post all sorts of nonsense on off-wiki sites (and sometimes on-wiki as well). I've personally been labelled with a number of completely untrue and offensive accusations. But whenever someone posts a new ridiculous accusation about me online, I stand up from the computer and go talk to friends or family to remind myself that there is an entire world out there beyond the nasty blogs and websites. As an admin, you'll often be subject to this sort of harassment, and being able to disengage is absolutely key to ensuring you effectively use the tools in these situations. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

    Oppose - concerned over his use of stating opinions as fact in WikiVoice in BLPs, and being ok with using an op-ed to do so. He has also demonstrated a rather distinct POV and I prefer neutral admins who are able to either recuse themselves when their own bias becomes an obstacle to fair judgment...especially in some of the highly volatile climates we've experienced on WP of late. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) I'm having 2nd thoughts about this editor after conducting more research, and being reminded of his many good qualities. Will sit out for the time being. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC) ^{Moved up the ladder to S 20:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)}

13. Oppose I like to see admins with experience in content creation, since that's the main goal of the encyclopedia in the first place. Only 20.7% of this user's edits are to the mainspace (see here). I'm also concerned about the type of conduct that Courcelles and others here have pointed out and this user's unusually high delete vote percentage at AfD. Aspening (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

    @Aspening: Regarding AFD, have you looked through to see if there are delete !votes that particularly trouble you? I have an even higher delete percentage than Jbhunley, but that is mainly because almost all of them are nominations, something that Jbhunley has in common. Surely their high success rate at AFD indicates that they are doing a good job? SmartSE (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

    I'm more concerned with the contrast between deletion/creation that this editor shows. So frequently calling for deletion while not creating quality content themselves is a red flag to me. Aspening (talk) 05:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

    It’s only an issue if the nominations keep getting returned as “keep”. Otherwise I think you’ve just got confirmation bias. If I see an article at NPP that shouldn’t be deleted, I don’t nominate it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

    Are you trying to get me to change my vote? If so, what do you see that counteracts this user's relative inexperience with content creation and noticeboards like UAA and AIV, and the concerns many editors have about their conduct? Those are my main points. AfD is more of a secondary one. Aspening (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

14. Oppose The shortage of content creation causes me to be dubious regarding this applicant's ability to become promoted. Additionally, page deletion does not seem to lift the burden. I apologize, good luck. DoctorSpeed^{Want to talk?} 20:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
15. Oppose per Courcelles. On its own the diff is not terminal, but Jbhunley wrote above that "I agree that it was an ill-considered remark and should have been left unsaid or said differently. That I had reached a level of frustration where I would make that comment is precisely why I stopped participating. What I take away from this is to make sure I disengage before my frustration prevents me from exiting with grace rather than snark." I find this troubling. If an editor initiates an arbcom case, he or she should be prepared to see it through. Further, he or she should be ready to accept that arbcom finds that they are wrong. To start an arbcom case and then disown it is, I think, inappropriate. Banedon (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

    Wait, what? It's entirely normal and intended to open an ARCA, AE, or whatever, and let the discussion run (largely among the Arbs/admins), answering questions as necessary, and not turning it into a big, emotional fight. ArbCom and AE pages (length limits, no threaded discussion) are specifically engineered to avoid turning into a back-and-forth squabble. But you're going to vote against the candidate because they departed when it started turning into a big squabble, because they didn't tendentiously fight it out to the bitter, battlegrounding end? Really? This is one of the strangest RfA opposes I've ever encountered (aside from trolling crap we delete, strike, or move to the talk page, of course).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

    I don't understand what you're saying either. If ArbCom and AE pages are specifically engineered to avoid turning into a back-and-forth squabble, then "it" turning into a big squabble probably means you're assessing it wrongly (as in, calling something that's not a squabble, a squabble)? One does not have to "fight it out" either - accepting that one is wrong, for example, would end the squabble. This is arbitration after all - a formal process. Banedon (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

16. Oppose - The desysop crusade over something that wasn’t even a breach of policy is an unflattering a red flag, but personally I can forgive that because people get emotional sometimes. However, their own assessment of the situation below, which basically boils down to them complaining about the result (which they probably should have expected as a foregone conclusion), gives me actual concerns about temperament. Admins should be capable of dropping the stick sometimes and conceding that maybe they aren’t always right. The continued attempts to relitigate why they were right and the unanimous Arbcom vote was wrong situation is just disappointing. Swarm ♠ 00:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

    I can’t help noticing the irony by which you appear to defend an admin using their tools to win a content dispute (it might not warrant more than a trout slap, but rather not every policy violation needs to be met with expulsion from the project, which is the point everyone was making) and say “one needs to recognise that one is not always right”. Editors should be able to criticise the project’s administration and state their views provided they do no descend to personal abuse (which this didn’t). Unless you can supply diffs of Jbh getting hot headed towards new or inexpericed users (as opposed to admins getting carried away and doing something silly), this is a non issue in my book. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

    So Jbhunley prominently and publicly calling Opabinia regalis "despicable" (in italics, set off by a dash) was not personal abuse? Softlavender (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

    Well Daffy said it to Bugs, but it was wabbit season. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

17. Weak Oppose with regret (could change) (not after this [15] thread). From thread above does not seem to have the stable and dull temperament desirable in an admin. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC).
18. Oppose Some temperament issues have been pointed out by other editors but I'm more concerned about the content creation. Aside from the sandbox creation the majority of Jbhunley's major additions to articles have been either reverts or adding/improving the quality of references. Fine, but not good enough to be deserving of adminship. I also find the answer to Q2 too long and too babbly, particularly if there's no DYK, GA or FA being mentioned. Minima© (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

    I kind of wrote the rule book on why admins should create content; if I didn’t think Jbh had suffienct empathy for those “in the trenches” (which is the real purpose of the essay), I wouldn’t have nominated him. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

19. Oppose. I'm not sure you're ready for this. Sure, your request for your WPO thread to get swept into the "Wikipedians too embarrassing for public viewing" section will probably eventually be honored, but www dot wikipediasucks dot co could still hang around out there for a long time, beyond your control. Be careful. "get along like a house on fire" may be a well-known idiom in the UK, but beware that Americans may take it literally. I'm not keen on reading your occasional potty mouth. I know many view the talk pages as a shop floor where salty language in the course of content debates is fine as long as it doesn't get too personal, but I think admins on the drama boards should be the adults in the room. So much drama could have been avoided by filing an edit request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/Newsroom to tack "for many" or similar onto that statement to take it out of Wikipedia's voice. Had such an edit request been denied, then it would have been more appropriate to run off to the drama boards and Arbitration Committee. wbm1058 (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
20. Oppose Agree with concerns raised here. Maybe if no further issues over the next year. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
21. Oppose I have reviewed the diffs where your participation in administrator boards has been highlighted. It is worrying that you had no direct or indirect involvement nearly all of the times when you participated in the threads of administrator boards. Behavioral issues along with the absence of content creation and major participation in drama boards as a bystander gives me no doubt to oppose. Kraose (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

    The statement "It is worrying that you had no direct or indirect involvement nearly all of the times when you participated in the threads of administrator boards" leaves me somewhat at a loss. Speaking generally, one of the more valuable functions of the various admin boards is to attract uninvolved outside attention and review to disputes. Editors offering independent, constructive commentary should be encouraged. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

    Absolutely. It's virtually the only thing I do at "drama boards", because the sides involved in the dispute are the furthest thing from objective, and certain drama-board-focused admins (especially at AE) have a tendency toward knee-jerk "banhammer" reactions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

22. Oppose per concerns above, most notably the comments highlighted by Courcelles. GiantSnowman 10:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
23. Oppose as unsuitable. I'm big on having a demonstrable need for the bit, and I don't see it at all right now. I would expect an admin to be somewhat well-versed in a couple admin duties, and the unconvincing quasi-answer to my question (Q7) gave me what I needed. There needs to be less on-the-job training and more preparation by candidates, which can be blamed on the frequent RfA nominators and the circus at WP:ORCP. I also echo the concerns mentioned above regarding temperament and the attachment to ANI, which is never a good look for someone wanting to be an admin. Nihlus 12:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
24. Oppose Reviewing some of the linked contretemps took me down memory lane, where I appear to be in the trenches, more or less on the same 'side' as you (although you seemed to have a tendency to take it, uhm, further). But what puts me here is the misjudgment, mis-temperament, and 'nastiness' in participating in fights off-site, concerning on-site issues and contributors, which really is a very, very poor reflection on the entire Project. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

    I very much respect your insight Alanscottwalker. I wonder though if it's fair to expect someone who uses his real name to turn the other cheek when an anonymous Wikipedia user with nothing to lose obliquely calls them an antisemite. I'm genuinely interested in knowing how a reasonable person should be expected to handle that.- MrX 🖋 13:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

    The 'slings and arrows of outrageous fortune' come regularly in life, and here, especially often to administrators, so grace under pressure and the toughness of ignoring and forgetting makes for better reflection on the Project, and better authority. There are multiple ways to handle things, some good, some bad, and some bad not just for you but also for organizations you are involved in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

25. Oppose at this time due to the fairly recent Arbcom meltdown. I've found jbh's commentary at AFD well-reasoned, and likewise many of his other contributions. And it happens that sometimes we lose our cool in a way we later regret. But jbh's behaviour in the Arbcom case request crossed the line into bullying. He did disengage, but *after* not *before* crossing the line. His answer to Q15, and to Drmies in the general discussion below, indicates he feels his conduct was acceptable, that he did not lose his cool and that nothing more needs to be said since he disengaged. That indicates a lack of awareness of the toxic effects of bullying behaviour that I am not comfortable with in a prospective admin who *wants* to work in conflict management. I could see myself supporting in a few months if it's clear this was a momentary aberration, but it currently figures too prominently to be able to support. Martinp (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
26. Oppose. By itself, I find the distinct lack of content creation (~20% edits in the mainspace, with about half semi-automated and many relatively small) not to be a huge issue. The same can be said for the lack of minor maintenance/cleanup tasks - anti-vandalism, spelling and grammar fixes, cleanup, and most other minor tasks. Without either, I begin to worry. That brings us to the two things that jbh has said that he wants to do: afd/csd and conflict management. I find no issues with afd/csd - he appears to show good judgment, and for those who are worried about the delete percentage, isn't the whole point of afd to delete things? That brings us to conflict management. Many others above have pointed out a variety of issues in this area (and looking through his contributions I find a few other issues of overly harsh or rude tone), which raise some issues with temperament - and I doubt that adminship will help that. All in all, I don't thing jbh is ready to be an admin quite yet. LittlePuppers (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
27. Oppose - per Courcelles. Admins must be held to a higher standard when it comes to dispute resolution, as that is their central role in my view. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

    Oppositions are fine in RfA, but we need to be responsible with our comments. Courcelles is opposing based on the escalating (rather than de-escalating) approach taken by Jbh in that case request involving FPaS, and their abrupt disengaging remarks. That is a fair reason to oppose, but we mustn't create a false narrative to discredit the entire editing history of one editor without even trying to be informed of the context, and to resort to basically "per above" without trying to understand the rationale behind these opposes. The entire purpose of that case request by Jbh was to hold an administrator accountable to the very higher standard they are expected to be at, in his capacity as a regular editor. I would expect an editor with a strict expectation of administrators to adopt a different approach when they become administrator, as myself and many others have already explained. Alex Shih (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

    @Alex Shih:, may I suggest striking the implied accusation of irresponsibility? An Occam's-Razor paraphrase of El Cid's comment would be "per the interaction brought up by Courcelles. Admins should behave better during dispute resolution, their central role, than the candidate demonstrated in that interaction, and I find that concerning", which you may or may not agree with, but is hardly an irresponsible comment. I'm not sure it is helpful to leap instead to the interpretation that El Cid was discounting the entire editing history of anyone, and accuse him(?) of commenting irresponsibly based on that reading. I am sensitized to this since I feel El Cid is articulating in their own words an argument not dissimilar to mine a couple of opposes higher, and there is a chilling effect when plausibly responsible oppose comments are labelled, especially by publicly positioned senior members of the community such as yourself, as irresponsible. Martinp (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

28. Oppose I have no problem supporting someone with relatively little content creation. Administrators are here to administrate after all, if you will. That being said, it doesn't help anyone to have an admin using rough language in the course of their work. So for that reason, I must withhold my support. -- Dolotta (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
29. Oppose I've thought about this for a couple of days, and I just can't support yet. Lots of good stuff, to be sure, but I keep coming back to the arb case. If you can't keep your head in a formal setting when you're criticized, the informal admin confrontations will really make you nuts. There's a way to disengage, and it's not by calling one of my colleagues 'despicable' and it's not by running away from something you started in the first place. I could support in a few months, perhaps, but not now. Katie^talk 18:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
30. Oppose Failure to drop stick during arbitration was too much. I find similar problems with participation elsewhere. Personal attacks on "oppose" votes outside Wikipedia makes it even worse. Answers to the questions are lengthy and unconvincing. You should really work on writing concise and effective replies. I am not bothered by your lack of content creation but when you have made 180 edits in July 2018, of which only 38 were made to article space[16] and 6 to article talk pages,[17] it surprises us that if you are really concerned with the content or not. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
31. Oppose Insuficient content creation.--Catlemur (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
32. Oppose I've been going back and forth over the ARBCOM comments and wanted to see if this is a pattern. But KrakatoaKatie's reason for opposing resonated with me and finally pushed me over here even if it wasn't a pattern. You shouldn't call someone despicable when there's simply a disagreement between you. That's not disengaging. That's getting a last word in and walking away in a huff. If you really wanted to disengage you wouldn't have posted anything of the sort. But you did, and I don't think that temperament is what I want to see in admins. Valeince (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
33. Oppose- If you had not said I am interested in working in conflict management I would probably be supporting you right now. However, the Arbcom case shows how you mismanaged a conflict situation and it was fairly recent. I absolutely will not hold this against you long-term, but right now there is doubt. “Not enough” content creation is not a huge deal to me because the work you have contributed is well done. Keep that up!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
34. Oppose - I'm not wild about the lack of content creation but that would have probably led me to be neutral, or just not to bother !voting at all. However having read the ArbCom case in detail it seems to raise enough issues of judgement and temperament that this is an oppose for me.Korruski^Talk 22:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
35. Oppose As per KrakatoaKatie. Have a read of Wikipedia:What you won't learn in new admin school. Once you get the mop, every man and his dog regard you as the enemy, and they will take pleasure in goading admin who they think they can make more stressed. Thick skins are mandatory. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
36. Oppose. Per lack of content creation and temperament issues cited by multiple editors. Cbl62 (talk) 05:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
37. I agree with the content creation and temperament concerns. I wasn't able to get my full reasoning down to a reasonable size, so I'll post it in the comments section -- hope that's ok. ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 06:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

    Here. BTW you're welcome to respectfully disagree with me. This is a discussion, right? ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 06:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

    I've read the Wikipediocracy thread. I'm not entirely sure what to make of it, but I don't think much of Collect's behavior either. Defending yourself is hard. ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 23:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

38. Oppose. The lack of content creation doesn't bother me (not every janitor has to be Will Hunting), Jbh generally has a good grasp of Wikipedia policies and procedures, and he was nominated by two editors who's opinion I respect. However, while the vast majority of this editor's history fills me with confidence, their refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK in the recent ArbComm case concerns me, given how recent it is. However, the final straw is the off-wiki behavior during this RfA. Administrators have to be prepared to be called a lot worse than just "antisemite" by reverted or blocked users, and the fact that JBhunley couldn't keep his cool during his RfA doesn't bode well for how he'd handle these interactions in the future. The attempts here to justify the behavior just made it worse — you can say "of course I'm not" or "X has a long history of making false accusations about me" without calling them an asshole. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 13:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

    Aside from the ethical offensiveness of demanding that volunteers be uncomplaining punching bags for abusive assholes, this attitude also contributes to race and gender gaps by reducing the likelihood that women and POCs would be willing to run this unreasonable gauntlet, as they are disproportionately affected by online absue. Gamaliel (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

    I'm not saying that anyone should be a punching bag, I'm saying that administrators should follow the philosophy of "when they go low, you go high". There are ways of dealing with abusers and bullies other than stooping to their level. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 22:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

    Are there really ways? Because it seems that the sole approach offered is "do nothing and absorb the abuse". Gamaliel (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

39. Oppose on concerns over temperament and lack of content creation. As Kate pointed out, how you react in situations like the Arbcom filing is directly relevant to your suitability as an admin. --Laser brain (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
40. Strong oppose I have just been reading an arbitration case from April. There, Jbhunley seriously misrepresented what some other editors had said, I believe from lack of ability to understand what is being said rather than maliciously, but it actually doesn't matter, because whichever the reason an administrator who does that would be unhelpful. He also expressed himself in very angry terms at times, was disparaging about editors with whom he disagreed, at times reaching the level of personal attacks. We absolutely don't need an administrator who acts like that in disputes. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
41. Oppose, based on review and noted for shortage of content creation. Kierzek (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
42. Regrettably opposing, after reviewing issues raised by others. I think your heart is in the right place, but some of the diffs provided show that you may not be quite ready for the mop right now. If you are successful here, I hope you're able to take some of the comments and diffs provided and learn from them quickly. If you're unsuccessful, I hope you can do the same and will consider making another run for the mop in the future. Strikerforce^Talk 16:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
43. Oppose. I wasn't planning on voting but I'm disappointed to see that JBH's conduct here is getting more and more similar to their conduct in the arbitration case, which was pretty dismal. Generally, JBH shouldn't be be involved in responding to other editors' votes or comments, but this business with Collect is too much for me. This is not the way an administrator should behave and certainly not the way a candidate should behave.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
44. Oppose. Echoing the concerns offered by Courcelles, Katie, Bbb23, Laser brain, and others. I don't oppose lightly, having had only positive interactions with the editor (as far as I remember), and I generally agree with Ritchie333 on just about everything. I hope the editor will consider that what seems to be a minor thing to them, maybe, isn't minor to everyone else, and that how one deals with past events is taken as a measure of how others think one will handle them in the future. Good luck to Jbhunley, and with regrets, Drmies (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
45. per Courcelles --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
46. Oppose While I see a lot of good with some of the work you have done, I can't wrap my head around your actions at the April ArbCom case. If your behavior is like that in a situation where things did not go your way, I wonder how you you will react when handling direct issues as an admin. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
47. Oppose per Courcelles and others. In April, the candidate made a mountain out of a molehill. April is still too recent. --John (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
48. Oppose. The ArbCom thing did make me think again, but I thought I could put that down as a one-off aberration. But in responses to things related to this RfA, I've been seeing an approach that I don't think is appropriate for an admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
49. Oppose. If the Future Perfect incident were a one-off, well, we all have a bad day. Unfortunately, though, I also see several other incidents that also convince me that this candidate just doesn't have the temperament for adminship at this time. I think that can be overcome, and I hope I'm in the other section if there's a second run. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
50. Oppose: I echo the sentiments of KrakatoaKatie, Courcelles, Collect, et al. I worry about the temperament of the candidate, to be blunt. The lack of content creation is also cause for concern: I still hold that our best candidates for RfA should be encyclopaedists, first and foremost. Finally, I have reservations regarding the candidate's usage of an external website (that is expressly for discussing Wikipedia) during this process, notwithstanding the purported transcript of what was said. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
51. Oppose per above. Concerns with temperament. -FASTILY 21:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

    Oppose with regret, primarily influenced from comments above and behavior regarding this RfA. Content creation isn't a huge concern of mine, and I was willing to move past the previously-linked arb diff. However, Bbb23 largely summarized my exact opinion: the conduct on and related to this RfA is very similar to that of the arb case, and concerns me considerably, especially with administrative conflict resolution. --HunterM267 ^talk 21:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC) Moving to support. --HunterM267 ^talk 17:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

52. Oppose I expected to !vote support when I started. But having been pointed to the quite recent ArbCom case I can no longer do so.----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
53. Oppose: I've held off a few days to consider your application because your most recent history concerned me. While I do not necessarily agree with the answer you gave to my question, and I do commend the fact that you have contributed to it's reform, my decision was 95% not based off of that, and I would have supported you regardless. However, your long history of AfD and lack of content creation was a red flag. It's an indication while, yes you do help clean up and remove content that is detrimental to Wiki, but you also lack to motivation to progressively contribute to its growth. And I would like to see an admin have a decent contribution in the growth even if they are primarily focused with the WP:MOP. Also, your recent desysop request was not handled well. While I am definitely all-for keeping our admins is check, but your actions is the Sunrise/Arbcom arbitration was case of WP:STICK to me. For now, I just can't seem to support your application, but I do appreciate you stepping forward and wanting to pick up the mop. These RfAs can be a brutal battlefield, but I do believe that you will take our constructive feedback positively whether you become an admin or not. Neovu79 (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
54. Oppose per concerns raised by Courcelles and others. Shellwood (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
55. Oppose per Bbb23 and others.--I am One of Many (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
56. Oppose - I am not going to pile on; sufficient to say that I am also disturbed by the temperament issues that have been highlighted. The lack of content creation is a secondary factor but nonetheless a factor. Just Chilling (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
57. Oppose. I like that the candidate raised significant issues in Q1-3, and I like the clarity in several other answers. There's some good policy knowledge. The lack of content creation gives me pause, especially when one wants to work in AfD or CSD. I like an actual experience of starting an article and having it tagged while still working on it. BTW, AfD accuracy is more important to me than delete percentage. The edit distribution is also troubling, so I see a weak candidate. I like to see a different career arc that does not include early involvement at ANI. The interest in ANI suggests being drawn to conflict, and Q1 states an actual interest in "conflict management". Candidates for drama need to be strong rather than weak. All of that might leave me oscillating in neutral. The term "boots on the ground" goes beyond conflict management and suggests a desire for combat, so I'm not sure he will approach ANI/AE with care but rather go "charging in". Supporters believe the recent Arb event is a one off thing. Maybe, but I'm not so sure. As one commenter above pointed out, the exit wasn't just leaving the field quietly. JBW offers an interesting insight about accuracy and analysis. I need to see more evidence of reserve and temperament. Glrx (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
58. Oppose. <ec> Despite the rational answers given above by JBH, and the good contributions at NPP and others, I must still regretfully oppose this editor who possesses an obvious clue and the heart to look out for the best interests of the encyclopedia. I even agree with his point made at Arbcom. However, the inconsistency of tone and temperament are not just occasional 'WTF moments', but a recurring pattern that more than occasionally emerges under stress. This would not be acceptable in an admin with the toolset. Loopy30 (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
59. Oppose per Courcelles, and a few others. I think the editor's temperament doesn't appear suitable for the mop. Also, the lack of content creation/improvement concerns me after all these years. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
60. Oppose - It is very rarely appropriate for a candidate to reply to any comment made regarding them during the course of their RfA, except within the confines of the additional questions section. Certainly, the candidate should avoid doing anything that can even be perceived as them losing their cool (e.g. Special:Diff/853136326). If they cannot do that for a mere week, then their temperament will more than likely cause problems during their tenure as an administrator. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
61. Strong oppose per JamesBWatson. Your answers above and replies on general comments shows that you are not really accepting the concerns raised here. It's not a good thing to consider reasonable opposition as "pile-on", "witch-hunt" and "lynch-mob". You have to judge each issue on it's own merits. I will point out the mentioned ANI which you have misrepresented big time. You can't refer the entire side as "group was later topic banned", since half of the editors were never sanctioned. There is no "related area" because Indo-Persian culture is a totally separate subject. The fact that you can't even judge or categorize the subject is highly problematic. Your comments on that ANI were so unhelpful that I had moved on to do something else than participating in the ANI thread any longer. Your failure to recognize that it was a boomerang speaks volumes and it is also concerning that you ignored Farawahar's long term misconduct. This is further proved by the present face of the article[18] that it still supports my version[19] contrary to your expectations. Even if we were to say that these incidents including the ArbCom case are rare and should not be pointed out, I still see no reason not to reject everything else including your hostility with Collect. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

    Are there places where the candidate has referred to this process as a "witch-hunt" or a "lynch-mob"? I found the diff for "pile-on" here, where the entire quote, in the context of his expressing frustration with the process, was "I hope it turns around but I'm pretty sure many have ceased to see me as a person and the pile-on will continue". I dug around and the only place I could "witch-hunt" and "lynch-mob" was his answer to question 2, where the entire quote was "I often hear cries of "witch-hunt" and "lynch-mob" at ANI and, like most, I usually discount them as hyperbole but this event reminds me that sometimes those cries are real and need attention." which doesn't sound like he's using it to discount reasonable opposition, but the opposite. Neil916 (Talk) 18:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

62. Oppose For someone who has edited this long, I'd have expected more content creation, but no. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 10:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
63. Oppose per 3,4 and 16. I had to think a lot. I agree JBH has a lot of good points, but he isnt ready to become an admin yet. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
64. Oppose Too little creative input, for a proposed Admin. Broichmore (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
65. Reluctant oppose. The suboptimal reaction to Arbcom's motion is just a little too recent for now. Will probably support a future RfA. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Neutral

1. For the time being, parked here. I might find time and ask a clarifying question to the candidate, but since I am traveling for two weeks, it is quite possible that I would never come to that during the nomination.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
2. While it is easy for even the most level-headed editors to lose their cool during any aspect of the arbitration process, the conduct linked to in the (recent) above case was a bit over the top even by Arbitration standards, especially given that JBhunley filed the request in the first place instead of being dragged there. That said, JBhunley has many outstanding qualities and I may switch one way or the other after more consideration. ZettaComposer (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

   Your work at AIV is somewhat lacking for a potential administrator. All other scored areas are in pretty good shape, however. I believe granting you the mop would be a net positive, but I'd like a little more time to consider your answers and other items raised by contributors to the discussion before I place myself into S/O. Strikerforce^Talk 14:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC) ^{Moved to oppose}

   Neutral The lack of content creation doesn't bother me (not every janitor has to be Will Hunting), Jbh has a good grasp of Wikipedia policies and procedures, and he was nominated by two editors who's opinion I respect. However, while the vast majority of this editor's history fills me with confidence, their refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK in the recent ArbComm case concerns me, especially given how recent it is. If this had happened a year ago I would've voted "Support", but I can't quite bring myself to do so at this point in time. --Ahecht (TALK
   PAGE) 14:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)^{Moved to oppose}

3. Neutral - a symbolic neutral. It's very poor etiquette to engage with oppose voters on an off-wiki site during an RfA, even when one's position is correct. I also note excellent work resolving a dispute at Talk:Jabir ibn Hayyan about the never-ending argument of whether certain historical figures were "Persian" or "Arab". power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC) "Symbolic" struck; I'm now genuinely neutral. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

   It's very poor etiquette for oppose voters to whip up drama by casting aspersions off-wiki. Responding to such aspersions seems completely reasonable to me.- MrX 🖋 18:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

   • @Power~enwiki: I completely agree with your position however I believe you are laboring under a misconception. The post in question was a reply to a third party who was commenting on Collect's post which was accusing me of antisemitism in an off-wiki, public forum as if it were a fact. My only reference to his RfA vote was in a later post where he accused me of among other things the least repugnant being criticizing the basis of his RfA vote. My response to the other accusations are outside the scope of this page but my response to the later was [I said] "*Nothing* about your !vote - it's Wikipedia (redacted exclamatory obscenity)! Your, [or] ^{(fixed grammar)}really anyone's, fair comment is not something I would challenge there, much less here"

   People are going to vote against me. I'm OK with that and I will learn what concerns people have – Opposes can only help me as an editor whether I pass RfA or not. What I will not let stand are false accusations of antisemitism in a public forum where it is trivial to figure out who I am in RL. That is not a wiki-issue, it is a real-life issue and that always trumps Wikipedia.

   I can fully understand you not supporting my RfA due to my later engagement in that thread on other topics. I don't think anything I said crossed any lines. I do not engage much in social internet stuff so maybe I screwed up. What I hope is neither you nor anyone else continue to think is that Collect's RfA behavior motivated that post in any way. I'm OK with being considered a deletionist. I am in no way OK with being accused of antisemitism, not one tiny bit. Jbh ^Talk 20:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

4. At first glance seems like a qualified and capable candidate who would be a valuable addition. I'm keeping it neutral only to remind myself to !vote one way or the other after I have a chance to more fully examine the candidate. Chetsford (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

   Neutral for now. I like to give candidates the benefit of the doubt (we all have things we struggle with), but concerns about the candidate's temperament have been raised, and considering that many admins are nearly constantly being berated, calmness and patience are important characteristics in an admin. That said, his various posts here indicate that he is firmly grounded in sensibility, open and receptive to criticism, and skilled at finding and addressing the nub of various issues. I'll do more research tomorrow, but I anticipate landing in the support camp. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC) Moved to support. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

   Neutral for now, willing to revise pending further discussion. I'm happy to see another editor offer to tackle the admin backlog. I'm slightly concerned about the candidate's deletionist tendencies but I don't find the evidence conclusive either way. However, the hotheadedness the candidate displayed during the ArbCom filing seems rather recent and might represent a tendency to lose temper during disputes. Deryck C. 09:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

   Still parking here for now - Discussion here about the Wikipediocracy thread makes me wary of his temperament and allegiance, but on the other hand the Oppose section already has too much undue criticism about the lack of content creation and wanting to take part in controversial administrative tasks being considered a bad thing, so I'm not comfortable with piling on an oppose either. Deryck C. 11:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

   Switching to support. The thread on the talk page showed the candidate has been the target of a smear campaign on Wikipediocracy. The candidate should be totally entitled to defend himself and his political position. Deryck C. 09:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

5. Neutral. A generally helpful and sensible editor who would probably do fine with the tools. I'm not at all bothered by the "total waste of time" diff presented in the Oppose section, but calling an opposer "an overwrought bitter asshole" in the middle of an RfA is a bit much. 28bytes (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

   28bytes: is that quote on-wiki or off-wiki? TonyBallioni (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

   Off. 28bytes (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

   Sounds like they summed RfA up to a T  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

   @28bytes: Was this somewhere other than WO? I read the thread yesterday and didn't see those words. What I did see was user Collect making an odious suggestion of antisemitic about the candidate.- MrX 🖋 13:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

   It's still there as of a few minutes ago. 28bytes (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

   Is it in a non-public forum now? Yesterday, there was a thread under Governance, but now it's gone. - MrX 🖋 13:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

   Yes, per the candidate's request a WPO admin moved it to HERE. Login under your registered account to read it. I stopped just short of mentioning this in my oppose; I alluded to it when I spoke of "shop talk". wbm1058 (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

6. Neutral: the dreaded diff does not bother me, but the surrounding context does. I think good temperament and a polite communication style is by far the most important trait in an admin, and perhaps also an editor, though a lot of us (myself included) sometimes forget this. If this RfA passes, congratulations, and please think about how your tone will be perceived when during heated conflict. If it fails, keep doing what you're doing and barring any further incidents, I would be thrilled to support a second RfA.
   Either way, thank you for subjecting yourself to the hell that is RfA, and for all your contributions to the site so far. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
7. Neutral: Although this is a good candidate for RfA, the sparse content creation and what Courcelles said in their oppose make me go with a neutral !vote. — MRD2014 ^Talk 00:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
8. Leaning support but not there. I thought he was an admin. He does some excellent admin work. I am not personally pushed to oppose due to temperament concerns, I don't see them crossing into admin territory, deletions, blockings, or even intimidation of newcomers, senior Wikipedians can have their fights without it crossing into concerns of technical privilege. I am however concerned by a failure to see sincere apologies for documented instances of insult or offence, and he doesn't have the benefit of the doubt afforded to people valuable in content creation/improvement, or in closing difficult discussions. Maybe I can be pointed to examples? I am pushed to not support by the statements of many of the opposers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

   @SmokeyJoe: Not sure if this is what you are looking for but when I commented on a personal level to OR as quoted in Abecedare's Oppose #8 the 'struck later' mentioned was " Struck above. It was overly personal. Sorry. Jbh Talk 7:53 am, 14 April 2018"[20]. Since the WO thread seems to have become fair-game a copy of my final attempt to deescalate can be seen at Jbhunley/sandbox/Red pad 02. Jbh ^Talk 02:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

9. Neutral: I'd like to echo what a few others have said thus far in their neutral and oppose votes; I'd like to see a bit more content creation out of a potential admin. I don't think that a lack of significant content creation is enough by itself to warrant an oppose however, so I'll stick around in the Neutral column for now. I'm very much open to being swayed though. Looking forward to seeing how this RfA plays out.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 04:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
10. Neutral - This is a fascinating example of why the RFA system is fucked up and needs to be replaced by an elected committee appointing new administrators rather than continuing with this inane public pillory process, complete with moving goalposts and 50 people simultaneously making up their own rules for Calvinball... That the proprietor of a certain almost-always-addled blog is in shriek mode is one plus for the candidate, in my view; his mainspace work definitely a weak point. That he is outspoken is probably the kiss of death with those who see joining WP administration as the necessary donning of a uniform for some sort of homogenized cult. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
11. Neutral- I believe JBH has the best intent and is very passionate but that can sometimes cause him to go to the deep end and the like. I can relate with that. I believe the content creation argument is bogus too. Gnoming articles to fix them up to meet the standards of this site and patrolling new pages is very much in the content creation department. The off wiki incident did leave a bad taste in my mouth. JC7V-constructive zone 20:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
12. Neutral. I had expected to support, I think that the level of content creation is adequate for instance, but recent (this year) comments at ArbCom make me unable to. This was an issue that probably should't have been escalated at all and the general inability to see that his opponents were operating not only in "Good Faith" but with a plausible interpretation of policy makes me concerned that he might end up in an unfortunate conflict as an admin which are, unfortunately, difficult to resolve. I do hope, however, that this RfA does not forever sour you on the process and that in the future you are able to make a successful application. Eluchil404 (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

General comments

• Just noting here that I've closed the ORCP now that this RFA is open. Will consider whether to participate here later (I try to avoid pile on !votes where possible). Iffy★Chat -- 15:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

---

• Mind you, I like swordfishing too, but I wouldn't take a year off because of it! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

---

• Who on earth is/was neutral?! As of 16:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC) I have purged cache of this page for four times. Now the tally at top shows 13/1/1, but there is nothing at all in neutral section. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  its getting really annoying. Now it reads 14/1/1. I rechecked the history again, there was no vote in that section. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  I think it's the stray hash tag in there that's causing it. I've removed it so we'll see if that works.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  I'm seeing 14/1/0, so maybe? Vanamonde (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  @Pawnkingthree: yup. I got an edit conflict with you. I commented it out with a comment lol. the counter is now zero. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

---

• I'm seeing a lot of Oppose votes that cites lack of content creation. There are several problems that arise with that as a reason. The most foremost problem I have with that, is that an Admin is more involved in the actual workings of Wikipedia, rather than a focus on content creation. Wouldn't someone who is already involved in such workings be better? My second comment, is that with the comprehensiveness of Wikipedia, it is becoming increasingly harder to make meaningful contributions to content or create new pages as the project continues. Currently, unless it is a really obscure topic, or a current news, there are very few topics that Wikipedia has not covered. Dark-World25 (talk) 07:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

---

Sunrise/Arbcom issues

• I'm not sure what my views are on the legitimacy or lack thereof over the desysop request, as I haven't read it through it sufficiently. However his departing post, while poor and not especially passively aggressive, does not appear a particularly grevious act to me. Being unhappy with ArbCom rulings, and even expressing such, is not a very large negative, and would not be even for an admin. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• For those who are interested in reading more, here is a link to the case request as it stood just prior to archiving [21]. Jbh ^Talk 22:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I have huge respect for the editor who raised that issue in the oppose section, so I took notice of that comment, and went back and reviewed what happened. I'm staying in the support section. If everyone who has had a WTF moment during an ArbCom case were to be regarded negatively, then that would apply to the overwhelming majority of people who have participated in ArbCom cases – including me. And I think that it's very relevant that the ultimate decision in that case was passage of a motion that did, indeed, recognize that what JBH had brought up was a sufficient problem to justify a motion. And the underlying motivation of the case request was the opinion that admins should not overreach, which is a good opinion for admins to hold. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Context is crucial here. Jbh's frustrated post was directed toward the emerging notion from some arbitrators that the case request should simply be declined without any action. That was wrong. Editors need to hold administrators accountable, and being frustrated at ArbCom's inability and/or indifference of holding administrators accountable is rightly justified. I trust Jbh's record would suggest that they would adopt more diplomatic approach in a similar situation should they be in a position with more responsibilities. Alex Shih (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I hope incoming editors can take a look at Jbh's reflection over their behavior at the arbitration case in question ([22]). Alex Shih (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• If I may chime in with GRuban: Jbhunley, I know you as a valuable contributor, but I also would like to hear what you have to say on that. I did not see any commentary on it on your talk page, but this is an important thing: do you feel differently about that case and its result now, a few months later? Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

  @Drmies: Hmmm... I still feel that FPas abused their tools and failed to respond to inquiries about that misuse per ADMINACCT. ArbCom is the only place to go to deal with such matters. When I opened the case I thought it would be an open-and-shut matter resolved by having FPaS explain their actions and ArbCom saying "Bad. Don't do that again"; Or by FPas not explaining their actions and loosing their bit.

  I was flat out floored that Arbs were willing to give FPaS a pass. Later, when I found that FPaS had a prior case regarding two arguably INVOLVED blocks effectively dismissed by motion, I figured the Arbs who were dismissing the case request as a one-off would open a case to examine what was arguably the pattern they were looking for. They did not. I did, and do, see that as an abdication of ArbCom's responsibility to police administrators. Someone else said the level of administrator conduct required to open a case is massive dumpster fire or words to that effect. I believed and still believe it is ArbCom's responsibility to either police administrators before matters reach catastrophic levels or to share their oversight responsibilities/powers with a community process.

  As to the result I perceive it to be milquetoast. I think there should have been, at a bare minimum, a direct forceful condemnation of FPaS's actions not some 'general reminder'. I am not going to get worked up because ArbCom or the community see things differently than I do though.

  You have seen no commentary on my talk page because I said in my now infamous quote that I was stepping away from the matter and I did. I presented my case, my reasoning and finally my utter shock. I was not persuasive and, for me, that was the end of it. I do not carry baggage around, certainly not Wikipedia baggage, I learn from my experiences and adjust my expectations and behavior. If I see similar behavior from an administrator I will call them on it but I hope never to open another administrator conduct case. Jbh ^Talk 21:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

  • User:Jbhunley, thank you for responding here, and above. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • It would not have been the only times that particular admin had done similar. AN overturned, retroactively to date of issuance, one of the topic bans FPaS issued, because FPaS refused to respond in any way to administrative or other requests to attempt to justify it. While it's possible ArbCom was unaware of this – I had not mentioned it to Arbs until an ARCA last month – if they were examining Jbhunley's complaint about FPaS very carefully, they would have found this quickly. The cause for Jbh's request about FPaS – and Jbh's surprise and dismay in the dismissive way it was treated – are not odd to me in any way. It's really unfortunate that ArbCom not doing due diligence is being used to hang this RfA candidate, whose only "sin" in this appears to have been more testy about it than necessary (but then dropping the matter, which many editors would not have).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

---

Content creation

• Noting that the candidate created Signatories of PNAC's policy documents who served in the administration of George W Bush (the article moved several times, but that's where it landed. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you for the original article link. I discuss the article as well as the associated disputes and lessons learned in my answer to Question #3. Jbh ^Talk 02:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

---

About AFD Remember, the point of AFD is to delete articles, and it does that just well. We would guess at least 70% success rate, so I wouldn't be put off by that many deletes !vote. especially with the changes to NORG and NCORP andf the whole cryotpcurrency dramas in the past few months, there is plenty to delete.68.109.210.35 (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

We? Please see WP:sharedaccount. I would put the rate at higher, maybe 85%ish, but yes, AFD does its job well, and short of only !voting on the 15% keep/merge/noconsensus or just POINTY !voting mosty people will come up with a greater than 50% deletion rate, regardless of personal views. I consider myself an inclusionist, but out of the last 64 AFDs I did over 85% were deletes. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@L3X1: WP:SHAREDACCOUNT does not apply to IP editors. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Blind ol me^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

And I think it was the rhetorical we, i.e. "We editors can guesstimate at least 70% deletion rate of articles nominated for AfD".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

---

Move oppose discussion to talk? Some of them are getting rather—ahem!—energetic...anyone agree? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Or we could just follow Jbh's wishes, as stated in the talk page... –FlyingAce^✈hello 11:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

If it was their call, then sure. I don't think it probably is. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not their call. Discussing opposes is part and parcel of the RFA process, and also vital for future voters seeking to ascertain if there is validity in the oppose. They should only be archived to the talk page if it's clear they've veered off topic, or into a repetitious dialogue with no new insights being offered.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Examples: No. 1 has remained on topic—discussing content creation—while no. 2, has, conversely, descending into a brouha about the meaning of beration...so less useful. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, which is a shame, because the initial responses to that vote were exactly the kind of useful insights into the merits of the vote that we need.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no policy-based rationale for moving comments from the main RfA page to talk. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely, BU Rob13, and Bbb23 already did :D —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 20:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

---

I somehow came up with a whole wall of text about this. I've never posted anything in this section before, but somebody suggested I put what I had to say here. Sorry if this is inappropriate or too long.

I agree there isn't enough content creation. The argument that administrative matters are all he needs to be involved in anyway is noted, but I think he is skewed too far in that direction. On other wikis I have seen how badly it can go wrong when non-writers are made admins. He says his experiences have given him empathy with content creators; maybe so. The writing experience is still not there. He has written five articles, yes, and they are all stubs and all created this year. [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] He's quite new to this. I also notice Sorbolongo was originally a translation of the Italian article and has only one ref. He mentions none of these as his best contributions, only the draft in his userspace, which is substantial but nonetheless a draft. He has made many edits to quite a few articles, but his additions are very thin and outweighed by his removals. From this and his response to Q1, as well as his AFD stats noted by Collect, it is clear that he is by far most interested in the destructive side. That's not "bad", and he seems to be good at it, but this is not the balance I want to see. Those who do not write articles should not have power over those who do.

In addition to this, I note two similarly uncivil edit summaries on the article: One last time. See the fricking talk page. Discuss. See WP:OWN Discuss this on the bloody talk page. It iis the opinion of single authors not the editorial opinion of the BBC. Using picked quotes to puff up this person violates WP:NPOV . I'm done someone else deal with this shit. It seems he was rightly frustrated, but he shouldn't have said it that way. This was in November 2016. Maybe he's changed, but he only has five months of recent activity after the gap in 2017, which isn't much to go on. He also doesn't address it in Q3. For recent behavior, however, there was the FPaS case. This shows him knowing his limits, but I don't like where his limits are. This comment to Opabinia regalis is also uncalled for. Yes, he struck it, but he says "When I am annoyed I usually spend quite a bit of time using Show preview to make sure my response is appropriate and well crafted." So why did he say those things at all? I'm glad he acknowledged his mistakes, but this was only in April. So was the ANI thread about Farawahar in which I think he was fairly reasonable but went too far in defending her. He said "Just looking at your talk page I am extremely disinclined to accept your judgment of whether an editor to much of a disruption to be allowed to edit. There is a parable about a mote and a beam you may wish to locate and reflect on before you start calling too loudly for indefs." This seems too much about the person making the argument and not the real topic. Also, "While I am not an administrator and can not block anyone. I will happily ping one and ask they block the next editor who makes an upsupported accusation." There were seemingly legitimate concerns with Farawahar's behavior, so I think this was a bit much. Finally, there's the alleged "overwrought bitter asshole" remark on Wikipediocracy that I can't see. The supporters don't see a pattern. I'm afraid I do. I'm sorry. ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 06:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, ekips39, IMO it's inappropriate. It's TL;DR, 630 words where 200 would suffice for any oppose rationale that would explain your opposition and even influence the voters. It's probably even the longest oppose on record (I have to check). This kind of voting turns RfA into a bigger farce than it's become. No wonder we have no takers for RfA (perhaps that's your objective). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Kudpung I'd like to ask you to reconsider your reply to Ekips39. Good faith editors do not deserve having their good faith efforts distorted for the convenience of another person's pleasure. This applies to the candidate, to you and me, and to all whom give of their volunteer time in sincerity and hopeful optimism. Without constructing the end, you can not see bad faith in his or her participation here. I hope you'll agree.--John Cline (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I would like to argue in the opposite direction: that it is because RfA is an election rather than a discussion, replete with fly-by votes and blatantly incorrect rationales, that turns people off from it. People don't behave this way at most types of discussions, and when we encounter those behaviors we don't care, because we disregard them. Votes and falsehoods don't form consensus, but they determine whether someone passes RfA: this is what nominees have said makes it so stressful. I imagine if RfA were more like most discussions, and we conversed with each other, made actual arguments, we would if nothing else understand each other better, and that would at least help. This explanation was long, but it was also the most informative and helpful I've read, and that's not a coincidence. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I really didn't mean to do this or have any bad intentions. I felt I had to analyze Jbhunley in some detail because I don't know him. I haven't participated in one of these since 2015, so I'm out of practice. ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 13:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

ekips39, you should not feel that you have done a wrong thing or that an apology is due for anything related to your !vote in this RfA (at least not from you).--John Cline (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

John Cline, I will concede that while the vote rationale is excessive in its length (to say the least), ekips39 made it in good faith. I highly recommend that he read this, however, before venturing into RfA nthe next time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ekips39: I have no desire to step into the general debate of what is an appropriate comment at an RfA. I want to say I appreciate you taking the time to write a detailed discussion of your reasoning for opposing my candidacy. To me it indicates that you are not only willing to invest time and effort in assessing me but you have the respect to explain, in detail, the issues you found and why they are troubling to you. That allows me to see the aggregate of what, to me, were isolated incidents. That is something which can ultimately help me improve how I manage those types of situations much more than a repeated references to a single/closely connected incident(s). So thank you, I will reflect on what you have said here. Jbh ^Talk 14:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Jbhunley, I am very glad to see your comment above. Where I was in a difficult spot; torn by uncertainty regarding your candidacy, the decision you acted on to provide the comment has eradicated any doubt I may have had and you will have my support and full trust as a result.--John Cline (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

He’s got far more content logged than some admins who passed in the high 90s relatively recently (and did so on the “good vandal fighter” ticket - I’m not naming names but you can figure it out). As for calling a spade a spade, well it’s not recommended practice but I think admins generally, if unchecked, follow the old maxim of “absolute power corrupts, absolutely”, and I’ve certainly got frustrated that a group of admins are wrong but can’t see it. I’ve discussed this more recently on User talk:Eric Corbett, so go and read that. I haven't contributed to Wikipediocracy but have previously expressed general support for it (see Neutral #3 at my own RfA) and while it may attract the odd jerk, they tend not to stick around (or at least on the public facing parts) - I just think it's a shame the blog has kind of fallen by the wayside. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

What I don't think is appropriate, Ritchie333 is turning an RfA into a second WT:RfA. If one has to evoke Wikipedia hate sites where trolls, blocked and banned users abound, and users with a Guinness record block log have to be mentioned, that's the place to do it - and the people there are generally more civil and more objective. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Those who do not write articles should not have power over those who do. Except there are no pre-reqs to voting at as many AFDs as you wish, or being a NPP or PRODding and CSDing your way to 100,000 edits. :/ ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

---

A note on edit counts and Q18 This is a common mistake made by RfA voters, so I thought I'd address it here. The "Namespace Totals" at xtools does not appear to include edits to deleted pages. For editors that do new-page patrol (especially before ACPERM), every page they tag for speedy deletion gets counted as 1 edit to the user talk namespace (that of the article creator), 1 edit to the userspace (the CSD log), and 0 edits to mainspace (because the page gets deleted). Similarly, successfully nominating a page for deletion results in 1 edit to user talk space, 2 edits to Wikipedia space (1 for the nomination page and 1 to transclude it into the log, more if there are comments that need to be replied to or corrections to the nomination), and 0 edits to mainspace. This means that frequent NPP patrollers will skew away from mainspace and towards userspace and wikipedia space. In this example, if you assume that JBhunley's deleted edits were all to main space, then a plurality of their edits, 34%, would be there. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

My question is part of a broader concern related to content creation and mainspace edits. I’m not sure if I’m comfortable supporting an RfA with such a lack of experience in content creation. I personally think that admins should have a decent amount of history in that field, as Wikipedia ultimately exists for the articles/lists more than anything else. I mean no disrespect, nor am I trying to take away the nominee’s extensive resume with respect to AFD or other non-mainspace work on Wikipedia.—White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 13:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)