User talk:Jbhunley

Taking a rest so I will not be seeing messages or watchlist notices. Might pop in to do some work on a userspace draft though. Thanks everyone. Jbh ^Talk 21:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

User page Talk page Dashboard Scratchpad Templates Sandbox Workspace

Talk page Nice things people have left me Sanctions I am aware of
DS and GS notices logged here

There is a User:JBH that made 25 edits back in 2005. I have no relation to that user.

Click HERE to start a new section below.

To all who have left me messages or pings recently

@Kudpung, BU Rob13, and Robert McClenon: I have been unable to do much of anything lately due to a sports injury. I hope to be back to making regular contributions in the next couple of weeks. My apologies for going silent for so long. Jbh ^Talk 12:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

About becoming an administrator

Wikipedia needs you! Take the poll. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia so far; they are very much appreciated. Your experience and tenure have been an asset to the project. Have you ever thought of becoming an administrator? It can be enjoyable, challenging, and a great way to help Wikipedia. To receive feedback on your chances of successfully requesting administrative privileges, consider starting a poll: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll Thank you! Are you reading this on another user's talk page? If you are experienced and trusted, and would consider becoming an admin, you are very much encouraged to take the take the poll. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: My apologies for taking so long to reply, I have been recovering from a sports injury and PT has been taking up my time. Thank you very much for the encouragement and confidence - it means quite a bit to me. I do think I would enjoy contributing as an administrator and once I have been able to get back to regular contributions I will give some serious thought to an RfA. If you have any suggestions or advice please let me know. Again - thank you! Jbh ^Talk 13:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello my friend. No apologies necessary. I hope you are recovering well from your sports injury.

About suggestions and advice, well that is exactly what the poll is for. They will say something like "run now and you're a shoo-in" or "work these areas for a little while, and then you will do fine at RfA". All the best! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Came by to inquire about same. I just think you'd be very good at it, if you're at all interested. Let me know if I can help in any way (e.g. if ORCP recommends making some new entries and you need ideas, etc.) Innisfree987 (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Innisfree987: Thank you. I appreciate the kind words, I only hope you feel the same way after my… errmm… outspokenness at ArbCom . The outcome of the case has led me to decide I would like to give it a shot. (See my comment on the ArbCom talk page) Although it would not be for a few months since I took most of 2017 off. I may, indeed, call upon you for some suggestions for articles to write. Most of my "Ah! That would be fun to write about" moments come from stubs I see at NPR which has the obvious problem of already being written. As far as wiki-writing goes, short biographies of dead people is probably my comfort zone to start. My background is in International Relations so I'm mostly a 'soft-sciences' and Liberal Arts person. Again, thank you. Jbh ^Talk 02:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi sorry for the delayed reply! Having a hard time collecting any succinct thoughts on the trials and tribulations of the mop, so let me put a pin in that and for now just make some suggestions about options for content contributions, which I always find a very nice way to clear the cobwebs, in any event!

• So I don't know how much academia itself interests you, but based on my experience writing academic bios, the first thing that comes to mind when you say IR + short bios of dead people is that I'd bet the farm there are quite a lot of notable deceased scholars (here's WP:NACADEMIC for convenience) who are important to the history of IR, but not yet described in the encyclopedia. It'd probably be comfortably straightforward writing, too, in terms of available sources likely being more focused on their work (i.e. book reviews, subsequent works that draw on their ideas, &c.) than their personal lives. You probably know best what favorite books, thinkers, intellectual lineages might yield the options most interesting to you, but let me know if you hit a wall and I'll find some specifics to suggest. (Entries on the field's "big books" would be another good option here, if a scholar of interest has a good entry but one of their major contributions could use more coverage.)

• Another nice option for planting your content creation flag, if you're noticing interesting stubs at NPR, would to pick some to expand 5x and submit to DYK. Especially with your subscriptions access, it won't be too hard to take something from 100 to 500 words, and then I can easily lend a hand with the (weird but ultimately quite manageable; these are good instructions) nomination process, if you aren't already acquainted. Some may even feel 5x DYKs are better than new article creations, namely the crowd that believes all the important topics already have entries and they just need improving; plus you get a bit more of the experience content creators like to see in terms of understanding what it's like to have others come along and sometimes run a bit roughshod over something you've worked hard on, via the reviews (which at DYK are mostly mild but have their occasional frustrations). Taking something to GA obviously gets even more experience in this regard, but you could start with simple 5x expansions and see if anything catches your interest enough to want to take it further.

• Something of a combo of items 1 and 2: if IR might mean you're comfortable in another language, you could poke around for entries needing translating from other projects. That does give you an "article created" on your en-wiki log, and the fact is, working it up properly will usually require a good amount of additional content work--with a few exceptions, lots of other projects have lower sourcing standards than en-wiki, so even if an entry in another language gives you a jumping-off point, you'll typically need to do a good amount of sourcing and other development yourself. Happy to help also with the technical details of this if you need (pluses and minuses of the translation tool; edit history attribution; etc.); on content my usefulness will depend on the language.

...well, that's not succinct but hopefully of some help! Let me know if there are any more specifics I can help with, whether now or further down the road! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Innisfree987: Thank you for the encouragement. I finally got off my butt and started writing - Innocenzo Leonelli, Mutatesia Leonelli, and Sorbolongo. They are spin-offs from an article I am doing on a 17th century missionary, Jbhunley/sandbox/Ignatius of Jesus, who turned out to be much more interesting than I thought he would be. Jbh ^Talk 14:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Not that you asked! But if you don't mind my interjecting, I think there's a lot of good stuff in your Ignatius of Jesus draft and you should go ahead and put it out in mainspace to work on more there. It doesn't have to be complete or picture-perfect from Day 1! You've already done a lot of work and I think it'd be great for folks to see that to get a fuller picture of your work, if an RfA might be imminent! (I know it'd be a bit of a drag since you have your notes for expansion so nicely formatted, but you could keep that in your sandbox and post the completed bits to a new entry? Since you wrote the entirety, I believe that's ok for attribution rules.) Innisfree987 (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Innisfree987: That is not a bad idea although it may take almost as much work to make what is there ready for Article space as it would to just finish it. I will give it a once over and see what can be done before I submit my RfA. There is really only 6-8 hrs of work to finish what is outlined there. Cheers! Jbh ^Talk 02:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, even better--most of all for your reading audience! Looking forward to it. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Also, as I'm sure you are aware, I still think this is an excellent idea. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thank you. That means a lot. Jbh ^Talk 14:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

References and reference sources

Hi Jbhunley, I would like to upload the scanned copy of the article (the source is not available online), published in the French weekly newspaper and to use the link for the reference of my Wikipedia draft page(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mickael_Pariente). Of course, I am going to add all the necessary information such as byline (author's name), title, translated title of the article, name of the newspaper. Can you please help me to determine what is the copyright status of my file is? Does Wikipedia allow this method of adding of references? Thank you in advance. AsyaM (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Attention required

Hello. You were involved in a Admin incident a while back. Need your feedback in the talk page. as the issue has been brought up again. KevinNinja (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

(my first edit is of importance):

Please view discussions around Archive 4, there are also admin infraction discussions (particularly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive936#Battle_of_France). You will find that Keith-264 has always been the one unwilling to work with other editors, starting edit wars, in order to impose his biased historical views. Here is a statement I made last time when I was reported to the admins by Keith for "edit warring":

Keith is just trying to do something that will win over some sort of edit superiority over the article so he can assert his biased and irrational views. Keith, how about instead of undoing all my edits without replying to the thread for reason (and going directly here to complain to the admins), you actually provide reason for why what stood for years in the past and what stands in hundreds of other GA's cannot be used in this article. Maybe you're the one to read WP:BRD, since you keep undoing my stuff without reason. Because, as I remember correctly, you were the one accused of edit warring by the admins last time, not me. And you're doing it again. KevinNinja (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

After my statement, User:Jbhunley said:

From reviewing the talk page it seems to me that Keith-264 is unwilling to accept the talk page consensus. Edits like "The RS are against you 12:5 so prepare to be reverted if you do.Keith-264 (talk) 11:13 am, 21 September 2016, Wednesday (25 days ago) (UTC−4)") when all of the other editors seem to have come to agreement shows an inability to drops the stick. The reverts today seem to be a follow on of the consensus to come up with Aftermath bullet points established in the same thread this quote was taken from. If this behavior continues I would suggest a BOOMERANG and a break of three months from Battle of France for Keith-264. JbhTalk 17:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe that in bold should now be enforced. KevinNinja (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@KevinNinja: First, I am not an administrator, nor have I ever claimed to be one. Second, I am uninterested in engaging in drama on a subject I opined on more than a year ago. Third, if the prior two statements were not the case I would be strongly inclined to look upon the editor who tried to rope a relatively inactive editor, me, - not once, but twice - into their dispute as likely being as much of a problem as the editor they are complaining about.

You were engaging with @Dennis Brown:, an actual administrator, back on whatever page you pinged me from yesterday. I have full confidence in his ability to handle the matter at hand. I'd like to get back to contributing to Wikipedia but I sincerely hope that this is not what brings me back. Jbh ^Talk 01:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Good to see your name

Just a note saying it is good to see your name back around. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you TonyBallioni, it is good to be back! I injured myself fencing (Longsword, so ouch!) last year and then life got in the way. I hope to get back into the swing of things here and edit with at least some regularity if not as often as I used to. I feel bad for dropping away just when we were to be getting NPR up and running, sorry for that, but looks like you have done a great job there. Also, congratulations on your mop! Jbh ^Talk 23:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third party opinion

Not getting involved in this.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As you seem interested in the case, and will no doubt know something about it having read the request form and will be completely impartial (not being a Muslim) might I ask you to give your view under this dispute resolution mechanism? The issue is that the matter has been discussed in two RfCs. The result of the first one was not accepted by NeilN, who claimed that it gave him carte blanche to disregard WP:RS, WP:V, and Jimbo's "principle of least astonishment". To quell dissent, the article was protected indefinitely and whenever the issue was raised on the talk page that was protected as well. In the hope of resolving the issue, a second RfC was held (Talk:Islamic calendar/Archive 5). The close was unambiguous and NeilN has been unable to wikilawyer his way out of it. The point at issue was this: Since the picture of a man preaching in a mosque has been captioned "Muhammad preaching at the Farewell Pilgrimage" the impression given to readers is that the Pilgrimage is nothing more than a homily in a mosque, when it is actually an outdoor event lasting several days which is attended by thousands of people. To dispel this false impression the question was asked "Should the caption state that the Farewell Sermon was preached outdoors with Muhammad seated on his camel?" The question was answered in the affirmative and the RfC was closed accordingly. Do you think it reasonable that NeilN should keep the article protected so that it cannot be edited to align it with consensus? 2.28.95.220 (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Watchlist layout

I noticed your posts at the village pump as I'd made a semi-related post recently. If you have Group changes by page in recent changes and watchlist enabled in your preferences you might find the code I wrote useful. Also, if you ever need to quickly upload screenshots to show people, but don't want to upload to Commons or sign up for another website, imgbb.com is extremely useful. You can upload there for free without an account and then share the link. nagualdesign 05:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nagualdesign: Thank you. I will give it a try. I have started puttering around with HTML/CSS/Javascript but I am a long way from having a grip on it. I understand old time procedural programming but never really got the hang of user interfaces and now it is all user interface. Jbh ^Talk 00:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm no expert myself, but if you have any questions feel free to post them on my talk page. nagualdesign 00:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I will. Jbh ^Talk 00:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Kiddie Kapers Parade

I've added more material and many more references. The parade spans many generations and is a big event in the area. Let me know what else I should include. ~Youngnoah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngnoah (talk • contribs) 04:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Latin word order

Latin word order is now up and running! Kanjuzi (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kanjuzi: great article! Jbh ^Talk 15:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Kanjuzi (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I screwed up on ANI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Deletion_TBAN_proposal_for_Rusf10 and (diff)

It seems my comment looked too much like a new proposal and that you commented on it as it it was! It was not supposed to be a new proposal in itself and I am very sorry about that. I fixed it by 'hating' my comment to avoid anyone else thinking the same thing. However this means you have two identical comments on that thread now, you might want to remove one or add a note of explanation, I would have 'fixed' it myself if it wasn't a matter of removing/refactoring someone else's comment which isn't allowed. Thanks. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Prince of Thieves: Sorry, I did think it was a new proposal and screwed things up further with my "making things clearer". I would say to go ahead and 'hat' the Opposes too since they are all part of the same thread and do not make sense on their own. Jbh ^Talk 20:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I did that. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shin Dong-hyuk

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shin Dong-hyuk. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Page redirection

Dear sir, thank you for reviewing the Page Kikira, It is important to note that this fictional character is very notable in Bengali Literature. It is not appropriate to move the page to Bimal Mitra since it has individual importance in Wikipedia. I have also put few references of English Text Book and newspaper link which may be reliable. It is my earnest request to revert and make it a different page. With regards, Thank you Pinakpani (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pinakpani: Please see the guidelines for book-derivative articles. They say, in part, "...it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from [a] book..." Essentially, unless the character can be shown to be exceptionally notable - like Sherlock Holmes, we generally do not have a separate article on them. Typically characters should be redirected to the book/series article in which they appear and may have a section in that article.

If you feel the character is exceptionally notable, I suggest that you first write an article about the book or series they appear in. For an idea of the type of sourcing required for an article on a book please see the notability criteria for books. Jbh ^Talk 18:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Chetsford. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Blyew v. United States, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Chetsford (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Chetsford: Thanks. I forgot to unclick review after adding the tag. Jbh ^Talk 18:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: - sorry, I think the bot left this message on my behalf. I only clicked unreview as I wasn't looking carefully and had seen you'd already reviewed it, so it was my mistake. Sorry for the confusion! Chetsford (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I should have unreviewed it myself because I think it needs another set of eyes. There might be more copyright/close paraphrase issues that I missed. Enjoy your weekend! Jbh ^Talk 18:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of 'Homoplasy' page

Dear Jbhunley: On 3 March 2018,21:09, you marked the 'Homoplasy' page for deletion with speedy deletion-copyright violation tag. Would you be so kind as to explain why? Homoplasy is an important notion in evolutionary biology, and elements of explanation can be found for example on the cladistics page, in the paragraph about homoplastic character states. Thank you! Manudouz (talk) 07:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Manudouz: the article was tagged and deleted as a WP:COPYVIO because the content, or a large portion of the content, was directly copied from another site. Wikipedia requires all content to be written in your own words. If you wish to recreate the article please re-write it in your own words and then provide reference to reliable source(s) to satisfy the requirements of verifibility. Jbh ^Talk 16:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. However, I cannot find which part of the Homoplasy page is involved in the copy from another site. The article content is quite short, and all three paragraphs (including the figure caption) are clearly sourced: Pages & Holmes (1998), Chirat et al 2013 (doi=10.1073/pnas.1220443110), and Henning (1966). So, could you clarify this point? -- Manudouz (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Manudouz: I can not say now since the article is deleted and with it the link to the comparison page. As I remember it 50-60% of the text was word for word from another web page. It was also, if I remember properly, written with so much jargon that it was impossible for a non-expert to figure out what it was saying and reword it in a copyright compliant manner.

This tool will allow you to examine the text of any Wikipedia page for flagrant copyright violations. You can also copy/paste various sections of the article text into various search engines to see what pops up. Both are good ways to check articles you write because often, especially with short articles, it is very easy to reuse phrases you have read or to use 'standard' phrases and definitions. Jbh ^Talk 17:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: All right. Thank you for the detailed information and tool. Manudouz (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Negative harmony

Hi there, I replied to your proposal with comments, which included merging the text into Ernst Levy. You didn't do that and the page has now been deleted. Please could you merge the text into Ernst Levy as suggested? Millstream3 (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Millstream3: As near as I could tell, based on scanning through Theory of Harmony and using the search function, the term is never used in the book. Nor could I find any reference to the term outside blogs and YouTube.

Wikipedia's notability guidelines require significant coverage in independent reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of an article subject. What this means is a source must be published by a third party with a solid reputation for fact checking and accuracy. We need this to be able to verify the information in an article. Without significant coverage it is not possible to have a Wikipedia article and without third party sourcing it is inappropriate to include the term in another article, especially since it appears that Levy never actually used the term. Jbh ^Talk 14:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi - you're right! I've just checked the book on Google Books. What he actually explains is an inverted approach to harmony based on an "undertone series". The term "negative harmony" does seem to have been a more recent coinage. But the concept is indeed Levy's invention. Millstream3 (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Until the term is actually documented in independent, third party reliable sources it is not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Nor, is it appropriate to tie Levy to the current concept until/unless such sources do so first. Jbh ^Talk 18:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Agreed. The text should be reinstated under "undertone series" along with an explanation that "negative harmony" is not a term used by Levy or in anywhere else in academic literature. Millstream3 (talk) 07:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Peacenik1

Thanks for once again pointing them toward OTRS. I hope they now understand. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

From Creator of Pierre-Louis Boitel, Boguslaw Wozniak, and Thomas Walls

I am currently searching for news articles directly. Thank you for your concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigleybr (talk • contribs) 21:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Please see my earlier comment on your talk page. Also, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's content inclusion criteria which for the articles I nominated for deletion are primarily General Notability Guidelines and notability criteria for politicians and judges. (Please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~. This will insert your user name and a time stamp when you save the page.) Jbh ^Talk 21:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant?

Whether other articles have iTunes links or not is irrelevant. - That makes absolutely no sense. No Wikipedia page has special treatment over the other. In fact, like I said, the other references for the other queens got approved to be in their pages, something you didn't mention there. I don't see how an ITunes link for Aja, Bob The Drag Queen, Miss Fame, Violet Chachki, Pearl, Trixie Mattel, Courtney Act, Laganja Estranja, Alaska, Phi Phi O'Hara, Shangela, Jessica Wild, Bebe Zahara Benet, Nina Flowers, etc. is perfectly fine but somehow you think this one for Jiggly is a problem. Once again, that is very hypocritical. Just leave. the link. in. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratherbe2000 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ratherbe2000: The short answer is - See WP:OTHERSTUFF. The long answer is that the iTunes links in those articles are not OK either and should be removed. They violate WP:ELNO#4 by linking to a site dedicated to selling something. As I said, if you put the link back in I will ask an admin to address the issue — that just means that instead of me asking you not to put the link in I will ask someone else to tell you not to put the link in or face a block. If you think am wrong you are welcome to bring the issue up at WP:ANI. There is a faint chance the editors there will agree with you but I really doubt it.

Please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~. This will insert your user name and a time stamp when you save the page. If you are unfamiliar with using talk pages check out this brief tutorial on editing talk pages. Jbh ^Talk 21:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:ANI on New Jersey Deletions

Did you intend to remove my proposal to take the discussion of the New Jersey AFDs to Arbitration Enforcement? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: No I did not. Did I catch it in an archive? Jbh ^Talk 20:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: For some reason it was under a header of 2 Content dispute for the Portal talk:Current events/2018 March 6 article and I archived it somehow with this edit. I have restored it and will remove it from the archive. Sorry. Jbh ^Talk 21:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I assumed it was an accident. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for reviewing Mithilaj Abdul Fasal ul Abid (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: hi, we have created a new article Draft:Aravind_V, Can you please do a review of this Article. if it is eligible please do move this to main space. Thank you. Fasal (talk)

Follow Up of Nomination of Deletion

Dear JBhunley, Thank you for checking in on Gotham City (Six Flags) page. I was in the middle of working on it, when you originally nominated me for deletion, and I was responding to the nomination, when my user page was deleted by user:RHaworth. Does this page being deleted mean that I am no longer an editor? When this is cleared up, I will continue working on the Gotham City (Six Flags) page. Chrisisreed (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Chrisisreed: No. It has no bearing on your status as an editor. Your user page was deleted for misuse of User space as I explained on your talk page. You are welcome to put some brief information on your user page but you may not use it to promote yourself or to create an article about yourself. Please see what I wrote in the section User space use on your talk page for more information and links to the Wikipedia guidelines which apply.

On the subject of the Gotham city article, please read the notability guidelines for organizations. In particular you need to provide independent, third party reliable sources to show it has notability independent of the park. It may be better to add some information about it, assuming there is some reliable coverage, to the Six Flags Texas article. Jbh ^Talk 23:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@JBhunley: Thank you!.~~

Please comment on Talk:Matthew Island and Hunter Island

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Matthew Island and Hunter Island. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Like the guy who shows up at a barnraising to hoist the beams into place, you showed up to carry out the consensus to redirect to a newly created article under a new title by actually building a solid article. You are appreciated. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: Thank you very much! It was refreshing comment on an AfD with someone amenable to working out a compromise solution better than either of the initial options which were on the table. Jbh ^Talk 19:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Please undo archiving

Can you please undo this? I unblocked the user because I realized I was WP:INVOLVED. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thomas.W already got to it [1]. I will check the archive page and make sure it has been removed from there as well. Jbh ^Talk 17:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your input

I wanted to thank you for your input given at a recent AN/I discussion involving myself. Feedback is important to me, and I really appreciated reading what you and everyone else had to say on the matter. Thank you. Spintendo      07:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

FPaS Case and Swarm

Would you be open to working with me on including Swarm in your case? The two events are related and I would like Arbcom to look at them both at the same time. I did not want to add to your case without your permission though. --Tarage (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tarage: I would prefer not to split the focus of the case right now. It focuses on a single act by a single person. I am only passingly familiar with what happened with your block but it looked like examining it would be messy and take the focus off of the issue I want examined. If you want to make a statement about your views on the situation and bring up your block that would be fine. If you plan to lay out evidence against Swarm and discuss his behavior I would very much prefer you do that in a separate case. That way both matters can get an independent hearing on their merits without one derailing discussion about the other. If ArbCom accepts that both complaints should result in a case I have no objection if they choose to join them at that point. Thank you for asking beforehand. I appreciate that very much. Jbh ^Talk 19:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry it's come to this, but Swarm forced my hand before even letting me post on the existing arbcom case so... [2] --Tarage (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tarage: Why would you copy the same material into both cases! It is not like it will be considered twice as valid. I mean, damn, the arbs do not forget stuff just because it is under a different section header. My thought is that you displayed to the committee the same WP:TE pattern you were accused of. I know that is what I read into double posting material. Why not address the material relating to FPaS in the first case; put a 'see case below' note in; and discuss the issue with your block in the second case? That way you stay within the word limits of both cases and do not spread the commentary over both cases??!! Jbh ^Talk 11:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I will also give you a bit of advice about framing grievances. If you have an issue with someone's actions frame the matter as what they did wrong, not as why you were right. Set out the expected norms of behavior and show how they were breached. In this case, if I were you, I would be addressing the needling/mocking unblock conditions, how other editors found that to be poor behavior, the long exchanges on the unblocking admin's page etc. Going into why you were right just sounds defensive. Addressing why they were wrong is what you need to get across.

Showing awareness of why your behavior could be seen as not OK is also good. Always own your part in a dispute directly and show you recognize how you could have done things better. If, once you do that you think the other party was way out of line you can address their behavior. In this kind of process you can choose either to defend your behavior or 'attack' the other party's behavior. Doing both seldom leads to a satisfactory result.

Oh, and use paragraphs! It is better to break stuff up into visually digestible chunks. Jbh ^Talk 12:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I was rushed to put it all together due to Swarm's filing but I will go over it later to condense and fix it. --Tarage (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement Length

Hi, Jbhunley. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; in any event, concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the arbitrators.

Requests for extensions of the word limit may be made either in your statement or by email to the Committee through this link or arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org if email is not available through your account.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 21:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Amortias: I requested permission to exceed 500 words on the talk page here. I will copy the diff into my statement so it does not add to the count. I have also removed the diff quotes and prefatory statement. Jbh ^Talk 21:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. The notification is purely to advise as not everyone is aware of the specifics for statements at the requests page. If you've requested an extension then once we've heard back I can tweak the template with the new limit. Amortias (T)(C) 21:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I do tend to be wordy… Jbh ^Talk 21:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Amortias: I was able to get my initial statement down to ~500 words. It is a rewrite since editing it would have left a mess. If the arbs object to a full rewrite I have no objection if my section is reverted to the permalinked (previous version) at the top, which is how it stood before the rewrite. Jbh ^Talk 05:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		This is for reviewing new articles in Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU (Talk) 05:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Path slopu: thank you very much! Jbh ^Talk 14:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Three Hundred Laz Martyrs, Jbhunley.

Unfortunately Primefac has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Copyvio removed. Might be worth looking at again.

To reply, leave a comment on Primefac's talk page.

Primefac (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: Thanks. I removed the image too since it is a copyvio from the same site. Considering the bulk of the article was a copy/paste I figured the intro might be as well. I agree though that the topic is one we should have an article on. If you are comfortable with it as is, I am as well so I have re-reviewed it. Jbh ^Talk 15:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Principled stand

Regarding this edit: note a "principled stand" is actually based on ethics: what is deemed right by a set of rules or principles. Going beyond the dictionary meaning, it's often used to describe a stance that doesn't just do what is expedient but is based on specific guiding rules. Thus I wouldn't say someone making a principled stand does not have facts or ethics on their side. isaacl (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Isaacl: you are, of course, correct about the denotative meaning of the term. In that edit I was responding to a common, dismissive rhetorical use. Often, as in this case, when someone says one is taking a "principled stand" what is being implied is the 'wrong' under discussion has no practical or concrete form — that one must reach into the abstract realm of ethics/principles/etc to give the harm form ie no direct harm was done to a person or thing only to some abstract idea of right. The implication being the one making the "principled stand" is making a matter of little consequence into a big issue, not because of actual harm but rather abstract or theoretical harm. The intent being to dismiss the complaint as being ephemeral and therefore either unworthy of consideration or even an intentional abuse of process.

I read " …raising a stink over an admittedly insignificant issue because you think there are Important Principles at stake… " as a dismissive (even contemptuous) rhetorical device. My response was to point out that there were concrete issues to address. While there are indeed important principles which should be addressed they act as a buttress not a foundation for the complaint. O.r. was basically saying that the facts of the case are so minor that they are merely an excuse or a vehicle rather than actual problems which must be addressed.

I hope that made some sense about where I was coming from in that quote. Cheers! Jbh ^Talk 19:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC) (@Opabinia regalis:. Courtesy ping only. — Jbh ^Talk)

Without commenting on what was intended by the other person's statement, I don't agree with what you believe the connotations of "principled stand" are, without the uppercase letters. In itself, there is no conclusion being drawn regarding the practical impact of the stand. Of course, the context surrounding the use of the phrase can add meaning. Accordingly my suggestion is that it would be helpful to reword your statement to clarify the greater context from which you are drawing to make your conclusion; otherwise, it's jarring to read a sentence that says a "principled stand" is the opposite of its actual definition. All the same, I appreciate your clarifications on the matter. isaacl (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The exchange at the case request is essentially a conversation between me and O.r. and I am sure that the two of us understood the subtext each intended. I understand how the rhetoric could be jarring but I do not think it would be productive to re-open that particular matter simply to clarify it for third parties. I do appreciate your observations and I will try to be clearer in my writing if it comes up again. Jbh ^Talk 16:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree at this point it's kind of late to change anything. For future, it may be helpful to take note that a lot of the time, the real audience for these sorts of discussions are those who are following along, whose views of your arguments will be affected by the straightforward meaning of your logic, rather than the person who you are addressing. Thanks for your consideration in this matter. isaacl (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Eventualism

I have seen over the years that eventualism is a good outlook on Wikipedia. If somebody needs to lose their ops, sooner or later they will. It is enough to bring a problem into the spotlight. Do not despair for lack of immediate sanctions. Jehochman ^Talk 03:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Thank you for the kind words. I figure you are right. My frustration arises mostly from the collective attitude at ArbCom that what happened was somehow OK. I see the ad-hoc justifications as moral cowardice. Everything about my background makes me cringe when I see people who have sought authority use motivated reasoning, deliberate incomprehension, etc. to justify not acting. A simple "What you did was wrong. Do not do it again." would have left me if not satisfied at least convinced ArbCom cared about such misbehavior. I can accept and understand other people differing in opinion about the magnitude and severity of the case but I simply can neither understand not respect condoning the fact of it. Oh well. It's done and I have learned something — not something I wanted to learn but all lessons are valuable. Jbh ^Talk 19:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Low blow?

Hi Jbhunley. It seems I must apologize for my late use of the template at User talk:Hillbillyholiday. I can understand that you, like any collegiate editor, would want to remove something that might be easily misconstrued as a real personal attack. I’m not in the habit of grave-dancing (or in this case what might even appear to be more akin to crematorium plot dancing),however, and your edit summary seemed to suggest that you thought I was actually being serious. I had hoped that the context of the my comments, in the recent AN/I discussion about HBH, or even my other inputs at his Talk page (over the past 5+ years), might have helped to avoid such a scenario. But I’m still struggling a bit with your "*and* a BLP violation to boot" and I’d appreciate if you could enlighten me there. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I acknowledge I may have misconstrued banter for attack. It did look like one to me though. What I saw, and why I saw it as BLP issue, was a newspaper article - in a paper the user had an adversarial relationship with to boot - which discussed (I assumed HH's from context) serious drunk driving charges and says "they got off lightly". Even if I am incorrect in my thought that the article subject is HH, the article is a BLP violation against whomever the subject is. It discusses drunk driving charges of a named person (BLPCRIME), it goes on to say they got off lightly (contentious BLP claim) and finally it is a Daily Mail tabloid piece.

My 'low blow' comment in the edit summary was snarkey and I apologize for that. The BLP part though (unless I am being really clueless, which is always possible) still looks like an issue to me regardless of intent. Jbh ^Talk 16:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Goodness me User:Jbhunley, the subject of that DM article is someone called Anthony McPartlin. I guess, as a UK TV "celebrity", from your safe distance over in The Land of the Free(?), you will probably and luckily never have heard of him. But that is quite an astonishing mistake. I'm also pretty sure that McPartlin has never knowingly edited Wikipedia (but one never knows, with all these IP socks about). Additionally, even though, as you probably know, the Daily Mail is currently PROHIBITED, I'm pretty sure that's just for article mainspace and that links are still permitted for the purposes of "discussion", even if they might appear to contain a "contentious BLP claim"? {... not that there was very much discussion in this case, of course , haha). I'm so incensed I feel I might just have to write to complain to Paul Dacre himself. Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like I misread the whole thing! Yes, I do know that there is more leeway outside of project space but, in my opinion, gratuitous links to bad acts is something to be avoided. Based on what you have said here I won't revert it if you want to put it back. Please do though be careful of how things may read to the clueless, especially in tense situations.

Yep, American… I did, however spend the better part of a year living up in Yorkshire back in the mid-90's — probably the most pleasant place I have ever lived. Jbh ^Talk 17:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

"Eh oop, Hunlers, me old rascal". So I may risk hilly restoration, at the risk of looking a bit tacky. But I take it as a compliment of the highest order that my ruthless link pun sarcasm fest could blend so seamlessly, in your mind, into a perceived reality. Anyone who has truly relished God's Own County, of course, can't be too bad. As a fitting penance, I feel you should be able to enjoy some wonderful John Shuttleworth with his caustic and incisive analysis of my life at Wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC) p.s. yes, I've lived in some right dives myself, but I prefer to keep it hidden...

Formatting

I think you accidentally styled Mr rnddude's comment in fixed-width. Bright☀ 13:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@BrightR: Thank you. Fixed. Jbh ^Talk 13:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Barawa

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm trying to reason with the user d and want to talk to him on the talk page but all he does is revert without discussing with or with the other users. So cam you please check him out for me? His name is Crenelator and I would very much appreciate your help sir. Logoat (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Logoat: Considering you started with a manifestly untrue statement — "You cannot use sources that aren't written in English on a English speaking Wiki forum which is unacceptable. " (There is no requirement for sources to be in English) — I can see why it would be unlikely for Crenelator to respond. I suggest that you open a new thread on the article talk page which says what your concerns are with the content of the edit. If you think the source is not appropriate, first read Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source, then discuss why you think the source is not reliable.

I have warned you both about edit warring so there really should not be further reversions without discussion on the talk page. If you make further changes I strongly suggest that both of you explain why you think something should be added/removed/changed. Focus on individual elements of information rather than wholesale reversion.

Please read over Wikipedia's basic content policies –– Requirement to write from a neutral point of view; All content must be verifiable by a reliable source; The policy againstoriginal research; and if you write about living people, the policy on biographies of living persons. You may also like to look over this brief tutorial on editing talk pages.

Also, I have pinged @Crenelator: since this advice applies to them as well.

(Please follow the blue links. These terms have a specific meaning on Wikipedia and the links provide more details.) Jbh ^Talk 17:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Alright sir, I don't want an edit war. I just want the user to have a proper dialogue with me and he keeps ignoring me and other users and just reverts. Literally check the sources I kept protecting and also added. I'm actually being the honest one here but he is just trolling and not talking to me. So I need your help to tell him to at least talk to me before reverting. That's all I need from you, sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user Logoat

I gave them the same warning about edit warring as I did to you so there is no excuse for them not replying to a polite message on the article talk page. If they continue to simply revert without discussion after you have explained your changes/concerns on the talk page you can bring the matter up for administrative (I am not an admin) attention at the edit warring noticeboard or, because communication is required, the Incidents noticeboard. If you bring this issue to a noticeboard be brief and concise in describing the problem and make user to provide diffs which illustrate the issue.

I also notice that another editor has challenged some of the same material at User talk:Crenelator#Battle of Barawa. They really should have done that on the article talk page to keep discussion about the article with the article but you may want to follow that discussion as well. Jbh ^Talk 18:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Username mention

Greetings, I received a username mention directing to this page and decided to see what's up. I apologize you were dragged into this matter, but things should be settled now. If you wish, you can follow-up on the discussion at the article talk page and decide for yourself. Best regards, Crenelator (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Reasonable dialogue is always a way forward and I think you understand the difficulty of having such conversations in this forum. Controversy can be resolved, but only if parties are willing to compromise and actually listen (or in this case read). Your constructive commentary, clearly shows that you weigh the options and seek improvement for the overall project. Thank you. It is very much appreciated. SusunW (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@SusunW: It looks like I might have brought about more controversy than your project was looking for at this time in the development process. Sorry about that. I do think that much of what is being said it an accurate assessment of how those proposed changes would be received at and RfC though.

I think if several national teaching awards can be found it would be good to include them as examples in the existing PROF. Also, there are discipline specific awards like the Robert L. Heath Award or the Jackson Jackson and Wagner Behavioral Science Research Prize which might be worth considering (I do not know what other awards might be out there or how significant these are. I only know of these because an ex, who is rather prominent in her field, was presented with them.) I would suggest doing a survey of the academic awards that are out there, especially those given in countries of the periphery, and see which could indicate notability, either singly or as a recipient of several related awards. Such an index would help both because it would point to potential article subjects and it would give some basis to argue Keep at AfD. Jbh ^Talk 16:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, most of the women have dropped out of the conversation and it is a bit more contentious than we would have liked. However, there is a song..."You can't always get what you want, but if you try, sometimes you get what you need". It is apt, as there is at least discussion going on (and maybe a bit of awareness of the problems has been brought forward?) I think such an index would be helpful, though I am not sure that I am the most qualified person to draft it, nor sure that it would gain acceptance unless some of those most involved in PROF created the list. SusunW (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Binding recall

If you want help working up an established policy for RfA candidates to opt into a voluntary but binding recall, let me know--it does seem not too difficult to envisage and relatively likely (oof such a dangerous thing to say!) to have support in the editorship. Don't want to dream too big but maybe it would even make RfA a little less tense! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Innisfree987, do I see an oxymoron in your suggested policy? One can't 'force' someone to 'opt' in to a 'voluntary' process. That said, my personal view is that as the 'recall' question is about a voluntary process, and one that does not affect a candidate's eligibility, it is inadmissible at RfA. Depending on the questioner's views on the subject, the answer could always be the wrong one. The questioner certainly has a view otherwise they would not be asking it. I do not believe an RfC proposing this added layer of bureaucracy would gain much traction. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I worried my phrasing would leave this unclear (Jbh's comment at the current RfA was, as ever, prescient to note it would take some word-smithing). I hoped to emphasize I was not thinking of an RfC to force all RfA candidates to accept a recall procedure (effectively, make all future admins subject to recall); but rather to establish an available but elective procedure that would be binding if and only if selected (basically, my suggestion was in response to another user's suggestion a candidate's declaration alone was unenforceable). I imagined that in some cases, a candidate choosing to remove the specter of mop-for-life might make RfA a little less fraught. But maybe that would not be the effect; if it's not viable or desirable to create such an option, so be it. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Innisfree987, I've said many times that I don't believe 'user right for life' is an issue that most voters have in mind. The more contentious perennial issue is the one of a fast-track desysoping process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung and Innisfree987: What I am proposing is not to force someone to accept a 'voluntary' procedure. Rather, since the current recall process is pointless because even those who post a recall procedure can ignore the result or opt out at any time, the idea is to have admins/candidates elect to use a process which they can not later ignore. Initially I figured that simply agreeing that the process was binding would be all that was needed but Xaosflux suggested at GreenMeansGo's RfA that a simple declaration would be unenforceable. To make it enforceable I think that the declaration of acceptance might be in the form of an editing restriction ie ignoring the recall procedure results in an indef block until they abide by the procedure.

Since agreeing to the procedure is not compulsory I do not see that there needs to be community agreement — it is a binding pledge made between individual admins and the community, just like agreeing to 1RR as an unblock condition is. The idea here is to build a community based recall process from the ground up through individual admins agreeing to binding recall. As the community gets more experience with the process and we see if the problems people think will come with community recall really occur or not, hopefully more new and current admins will agree to the process. After some point a consensus may form to require accepting the procedure as a condition of adminship but that is, in my opinion, far in the future.

I wrote a quick outline at User:Jbhunley/sandbox/ScratchPad8 and any help fleshing it out would be appreciated. I included one sample recall procedure and I would like to have several 'stock' procedures. One of the problems community recall has run into is no single procedure is well enough supported to gain consensus. Here an administrator can design a process they are comfortable with or, preferably, choose a stock procedure they are comfortable with. The end result being, I hope, is that more administrators will be open to some sort of viable community recall. Jbh ^Talk 15:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It is unenforceable as is for a "desysop" action, without amending the administrator policy. This would not necessarily preclude "blocking" type events enforced by other admins. Something to consider regarding recall: Would an administrator be allowed to "withdraw" from recall eligibility (if so are there conditions that would prevent this)? Having admins opt in all under different individual guidelines is at best confusing for other editors as well. If the community wants to change the "recall standards" - would admins who "opted in" under old standards need to re-opt in (would they still be held accountable under prior versions, etc?). In my opinion, having a non-voluntary recall/reconfirmation process with community managed guidelines is preferable. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with what you say, particularly about how confusing multiple procedures can be. If it were possible to come up with a single procedure that say, 8-10, of the senior/active/well-known administrators would agree to I think the idea may be workable with one or maybe two procedures. As to the desysop, it is true that the community can not enforce a -sysop but, by formulating the 'binding' part as an editing restriction the community can simply indef a recalled admin who does not resign.

As to the ability to opt-out after opting-in my initial thought is to say no but, on reflection, running it as a one year trial with the option to opt-out may be viable. If so, I would say that only admins who opted-in after their RfA would be able to opt-out at the end of the trial. After the kinks are worked out I think it should be a forever agreement. I will put some ideas about opt-outs on the notes page.

I would hope there would not be a call to make the system mandatory until a significant percentage of active admins have opted in voluntarily. By that point the system, as it exists then, would be the one proposed to be mandatory so there would be no transition issue for those already opted-in. At most I think it might be necessary, if only one or two recall procedures are to be used, to come up with a way to deal with tweaking the procedures for early adopters — possibly some minimum percentage of participating admins accepting the change, allowing opt-outs for major changes or some such. This is a tricky area where early adopters need to be protected and the system requires flexibility to respond fairly to problems which may only show up after the first admins agree.

If the community actually came to a consensus about this the consensus would trump whatever voluntary procedures exist. My purpose is to move the idea of 'community recall' forward using the tools we have to build consensus through practice and example. I would consider this a success if it were possible to come up with a binding voluntary recall system which 8-12 active admins were willing to sign up to for a year trial. Even better if new RfA's agreed to it.

I do not think it unreasonable to ask administrators to be accountable to the community after their RfA but I also know that any process must not be overly burdensome and fair to the administrator as well. Jbh ^Talk 19:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Then you should formulate your proposal for your system and test it at RfC, like I did with WP:BARC. We never assumed for a moment that BARC would fly, but we would have achieved something if it had. More importantly, it was the feedback the RfC provided which gave some insight on the way the community thinks. With your idea, tone of the problems will be: who determines the 'Eight men good and wise'? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Thank you for the link to the RfC. It helped me with some of the issues with getting community–wide buy in for a specific recall procedure. I have attempted to come up with a procedure which will, hopefully, allow a bottom up 'consensus through use' solution. I have applied the principles in WP:RECALL (That an administrator can specify recall terms.) and combined it with the use of voluntary CBAN like those at WP:Editing restrictions/Voluntary to propose an 'opt-in' recall procedure which has built-in teeth. A draft of how I think such a thing could be implemented is at Jbhunley/Essays/Binding community recall.

I would appreciate any input or insights you or my tps may have, particularly I am interested in if/how the procedure can be tweaked such that some portion of admins would be willing to subscribe to the process. The whole thing really depends on the good faith of the admin corps to be willing to allow for direct community accountability. I am hoping there will be a sizable group who feel since the community expressed direct confidence in the at their RfA the community should also have a mechanism to directly express a loss of confidence. Jbh ^Talk 20:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I've read it. I still do not believe that it is possible to 'enforce' a voluntary process. Nevertheless, there's nothing stopping you from drafting a RfC and presenting your idea to the community. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. I asked at, WP:AN#Question on enforceability of voluntary editing restrictions, about the current view on voluntary sanctions. Depending on the response I may open an RfA on that first. I think, if we do not already have it, a system for making enforceable voluntary cocommitments would be a valuable way to deal with some disputes. Much like what happened in the Rusf10/Alansohn New Jersey conflict. Jbh ^Talk 14:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)-

Clarification

I should clarify why I thanked you for this. It was basically the first time in a long while that I got the impression that someone on ANI had clicked the diffs and archive links I posted and actually read through them and took them into account, excluding "sexy" cases where the subject against whom I was providing evidence was clearly racist. More often, it seems editors who agreed with me went in agreeing with me based on their personal experiences, and didn't write anything that looked like they had actually made my evidence gathering feel worthwhile. I'm not big on barnstars but if I was I'd give you one for that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Phrase of the week

"mordant hurricane of flying feces" - I will be storing this for later reuse. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I felt 'shit-storm' did not really capture the essence Jbh ^Talk 14:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Were you perhaps being prescient of this week in that description? :-(

Probably better if you don't answer that. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tarl N.: I am so glad I checked my talk page tonight... I laughed and laughed... Thanks. I needed that!! ... See also "desensitizing cacophony of woe" below. Jbh ^Talk 03:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

archiving ANI threads

I have unarchived an ANI thread that you archived. It was closed out-of-process by an involved editor, and you archived it prematurely. We have a bot that archives inactive threads. In the future, please just let the bot do this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: OK. Responded [4] re your accusation of intentionally "disappearing" the thread. I'll take it as an off mood but you really should know better. Jbh ^Talk 23:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 23:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi JBH, Not moaning - Just some advice - My general rule of thumb for archiving is if a thread is closed and it's either long or problematic then I tend to leave it for a full day or so as that way if there any issues it can be reopened (and plus those interested can still read it), Obviously the shorter/less problematic ones I tend to archive within 7-8-9 hours of it being closed but yeah the more longer and problematic should be left for a good day or so, Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Thanks. I agree and I tended to leave anything but the most obvious for at least ~12 hrs, generally archive evening/night stuff when I checked in the day; day stuff when I edit in the night, but yeah, I was not consistent with 24 hrs on the longer ones. I screwed up here when I saw the "No interest on this board in pursuing this issue at this time" close by a well known user so, carelessly, the time didn't sink in. If I had noticed it I would have passed on archiving it – not an excuse, just what happened. Cheers. Jbh ^Talk 23:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Meh don't worry about it - Mistakes happen I mean no one's perfect in the world, ANyway thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Moved RfC

Hey, I moved your RfC to a subpage of WP:RFC, which seems more appropriate for something like this (the title it was at could be the name of an essay or policy page, etc. The subpage makes it clear it is an RfC). I've left a redirect so any existing links won't need to be changed. Didn't think you would mind since you asked me to look at it last night. I think it's neutrally worded and well put together. I was actually planning on commenting on it this AM (got busy last night), but you beat me to it! TonyBallioni (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! After I moved it I saw it should have been in WP:/Requests for comments/ but I was afraid I might break the bot if I moved it.

Thank you for your detailed comments at the RfC as well. You bring up cogent points about how my reading could lead to unintended conciquences. I do disagree on the derivation of authority to ban though. My reading would be that it derives from CBAN. In this case the community is represented by the editor making the promise, which is why I chose the wording I did when I attempted the change at WP:Banning policy. Admiditly it is kind of a 'policy wonk' type arguement so I figured I'd share it here. If it ends up being a keystone issue I will write up a comment about it at the RfC but I prefer to keep my responses there down as a matter of propriety. Jbh ^Talk 14:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You're good. People of goodwill can look at the same issue and come to two very different conclusions. I've moved RfC pages in the past, and I don't think it's caused any issues, but I reset the RfC banner to be on the safe side. The portals RfC was moved to a subpage from one of the village pumps, and it didn't seem to impact anything in an unbreakable way. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Sorbolongo) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Sorbolongo, Jbhunley!

Wikipedia editor Innisfree987 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Well that missionary really did turn out to be fascinating! What a great to read, thanks!

To reply, leave a comment on Innisfree987's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Innisfree987 (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

...well pre-autocorrect, that said “a treat to read” but it was great, too! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Heh… auto-correct and I have a mixed relationship… without it I spell like a child, a 'slow' child. With it, it is a toss-up whether I sound like I even speak English .

Thanks for reviewing those articles! Writing them gave me a good break while I figure out how to write about good 'ole Friar Ignatius. There is an unpublished thesis, in Italian, which I want to track down to satisfy my own curiosity after I finish the wiki-article. He was in the middle of some very interesting history. In particular I want to figure out the relationship between the East India Company and the Carmelite convent in Basra. From what I can tell of the politics of the time they should have been on opposite sides yet the Company seems to have been using the Carmelites to pass messages back to Europe apparently without fear of the friars passing the traffic to the Portuguese... That, and the politics which motivated Rome to spend a century before admitting to itself that the Mandaeans were not Christians. Jbh ^Talk 00:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Query

You have been making too much sense lately. I see Ritchie333 has already approached you before ([5]); of course he has. May I ask if there have any updates in your thoughts? Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

JBH is on my "persons of interest" list, certainly. (TheSandDoctor shot me an email about RfA while I was on break, wonder what's happened with that? ;-D) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Thanks. I think I will give RfA a shot sometime this Summer. I want to finish the article I am working on first. Content work is not my strong suit but I think it is important to have some experience putting together more than stubs. After I finish I will go through WP:ORCP to see if others see any red flags and then ask for nomination. Jbh ^Talk 16:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Jbh. Ritchie and I have written our statements. Once you have answered these questions, the page can then be moved to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jbhunley and ready to roll. Alex Shih (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  @Alex Shih and Ritchie333: Thank you both for those wonderful nominations! I will work on drafting my answers this week. Next week is pretty open for me so I think I will wait until then to open the RfA. Again, thank you. Jbh ^Talk 02:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

  @Alex Shih and Ritchie333: I have answered the questions. If either of you have any feedback on content or, especially, tone I would be grateful for any guidance you may have.Jbh ^Talk 21:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

  Personally I think these are fantastic answers. Long but precise. Let's see what Ritchie thinks. Alex Shih (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Q2 is a bit longer than I would have liked, but it gets the point across. It's probably too late to change it now it's in the page history and everyone can see it! In the past, I've prepped some answers via email first (eg: Primefac, 331dot), others I trusted they'll be okay on their own (eg: GAB, Cordless Larry). The one thing that's missing from your acceptance statement is you have to state that you have no other accounts (or if you do, declare them to Arbcom, then say you have), and check you have read WP:RFAADVICE and all the linked essays. As it says there, you want to transclude at a time you are alert and ready to field questions, so give one of us the word to do it, and it shall be done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I will see if I can tighten up the wording of #2 - I'm OK with people seeing it as is but I probably can get the same points across in fewer words. I edited the page to put in the account declaration, a 'not-a-paid-editor' statement and went over RFAADVICE again. I've also been through the 'new admin' pages and most of the other adminish and other policy/guideline/major essay pages.

I think Monday around 1500Z would be good to start it off. I can be available throughout most of that day for the first rush of questions and then keep a window up or check back several times per day for later questions/follow-ups. Jbh ^Talk 14:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Alright; I'll be on holiday at that point, and probably not online until hours later (if at all), so it might be better for Alex to do the deed if he's around. Transcluding's not difficult, but it's better to get a nominator to do it as they can't get silly oppose votes if they mess up. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Enjoy your holiday! @Alex Shih: would you please transclude my RfA whenever you are able after 1400Z on 30 July? Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 05:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh damn, I was assuming we were talking about UTC. Does Z means Zulu time? Alex Shih (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry... habit... yes Z is Zulu which is UTC. Jbh ^Talk 06:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• We haven't (to my knowledge) crossed paths too often, but I wish you the very best of luck, and my support, in your RFA. You would make a superb admin, and enhance administrative affairs to a great extent. Thanks for running, Stormy clouds (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC).

  @Stormy clouds: Thank you! Jbh ^Talk 20:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, I did not get home last night and could not transclude. I might not be able to do it for another five hours maybe. Alex Shih (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see it's live now. Alex Shih (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Innocenzo Leonelli

On 10 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Innocenzo Leonelli, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Innocenzo Leonelli gave his wealth to the poor and renounced his name to become a hermit? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Innocenzo Leonelli. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Innocenzo Leonelli), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ankit Love

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ankit Love. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. MB190417 (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. ()

Hello Jbhunley, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

• New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
• Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
• Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

• Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

• The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Precious

"Let's just leave it as is and avoid complications"

Thank you for quality articles such as Innocenzo Leonelli, for sifting new pages for nonsense and assessing, for welcoming new users and offering them your "quick and dirty introduction" to talk page editing, for adding refs, removing tags, for proposing tban before indef, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Wow! Thank you very, very much! Jbh ^Talk 22:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, love smileys. Don't miss my talk today, happens to be first edit day, and I decorated ;) - Imagine you were a candidate for arbitration, there was one question the last round. What would you have said? (Just for curiosity, I won't change my vote.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I assume you mean 'a candidate for ArbCom' rather than 'a candidate for arbitration' although... . Jests aside I agree with some of the specifics; a second bite at the close that was adjusting some aspect 'upon further reflection' would, in general, be OK only if the outcome stayed of the same magnitude e.g. making ban conditions more specific, maybe adding an editing restriction on the expiration of a medium/long term block, etc. However essentially vacating one's own close in order to open an ArbCom case oneself seems like a bad call to me. I also agree with her comments on Civility templating – I would go further and say use such a template should be curtailed. If one needs to remind someone to be civil then one should use one's own words. Templating someone in that situation is just going to escalate things. Taking a break before responding is good advice as well but there are several situations where that will probably not result in an outcome which is considered appropriate to, potentially, anyone. As would always 'letting it slide'.

Where I disagree with her is the assertion that there is really any consensus that "white-collar office politesse" is really a baseline even among white-collar Americans, much less our British and Indian colleagues. I address this difference a bit in a comment I made at AN about 'forced apologies' [6].

Civility, in the context of Wikipedia, can, partly, be seen as a collection of rules which prescribe the boundaries within which it is OK to express one's frustration, anger or manage conflict with others. In the context of inter-personal conflicts, it is possible for a bad actor to 'weaponize' civility norms as well. Defining it and adjudicating it on Wikipedia has been difficult because, like so many other social norms the rules and expectations are mostly unwritten and based upon and based upon the society/culture one lives within. In the case of a 'white-collar office' those norms have evolved over time and each new member assimilates the common baseline shared and enforced by all. Wikipedia has only the most rudimentary baseline with uneven social/actual sanctions for violating even that. The missing parts of what baseline there is becomes filled by the values of either the values an editor formed elsewhere, by the values of a charismatic individual present in a given group/time or through mutually re-enforced virtue-signaling. All of this prevents the promulgation of a consistent set of norms across the project other than of the most rudimentary sort and often they fall prey to situational effects.

If anyone is interested I may consider expanding that brief discussion of apologies into civility on Wikipedia in general although it boils down to the idea that, even if we could come to an agreement about a baseline the continued churn of editors with different social and cultural norms would make policing it impossible – assuming we do not want some draconian, authoritarian enforcement regime. Although I would beg your indulgence to wait until after my RfA as I am positive any such writings by me would be seen as self-serving, inflammatory or, more likely, both.

Ah… almost forgot. From a procedural point of view I would have declined because 1) the admin who brought the case was taking not only a second bite at the apple but was biting a whole different apple; 2) the requesting admin said they 'were requesting the case to "save" the editor from a possible community indef so, as OR said, the community had not exhausted all options for resolution; and 3) from the initial case request the complaint does not seem suitable to use as a vehicle for attempting to sort out the "civility" issue.

More than I meant to write and probably more than you expected but the writing was relaxing... Jbh ^Talk 20:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, - right, much more than a simple yes or no, but all good if relaxing. - Civility is such a tricky thing, - one of the things I found hurtful came in form of a barnstar, - I stubbornly leave it on my talk ;) - Once I told a user who found it difficult to apologize how he perhaps could, he then did, and the bystanders didn't think it was sincere, - I won't do that again. - Back to writing about music. Don't miss the video of the singer who said "Sometimes, particularly with a piece as radical as 'Le Grand Macabre', there is the space to stand up for what we believe in and to connect it to our times." (also on my talk, next to the lead pic that I took). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

One angry f-bomb, and they send you to the Principal for a write-up. It could be worse. If you buy Dijon mustard in your tan suit, then they will require picture ID and your birth certificate at the grocery store. Don't let the bastards get you down.

Bearian (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bearian: Thank you! I must admit to being a bit discouraged and disappointed but it is not as if I did not effectively ask the community to sit in judgement of me by posting an RfA. Ultimately, if enough good faith editors find me sufficiently offensive to their values regardless of the good the others think I have done, along with my recognition of and willingness to address their concerns, then I am fine with that. RfA has a high support requirement for a reason. Jbh ^Talk 16:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It reminds me of my first rfa which went down in flames for similar reasons. (lost my temper with an LTA, and made an intemperate edit summary, unfortunately on the talk page of a shared IP they’d been using) I ran again and though it was brought up again most felt the fact that nothing like that had recurred was significant and I got in the second time. Now, that was 2009, so I only had to wait three months, 2018 WP might expect a bit longer wait from you, but I think if you keep your nose clean for a while (and just stay away from arbcom if you can possibly help it) you’d have a decent chance of passing RFA#2. Anytime you see more than 10 neutral comments, that’s generally an indication that you’re close but just not quite there. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Thank you. That did not look like an even remotely fun experience! I seriously doubt I will do this again – I like and support Wikipedia but too many people here seem to think they have a right to comment on how I deal with a Wikimedian behaving erm …badly… off-site. Maybe once this is far behind me the big thing will seem smaller but I doubt it. Enjoy the rest of your weekend! Jbh ^Talk 00:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Jb

Sorry Jb... RfA's shouldn't be like this, but unfortunately this one has become a melting pot of vitriol from some and, with due respect, significantly valid opposes from others. At this juncture, in purely my personal opinion, I'll recommend withdrawing the RfA. Of course, it's your call and one which you should take with the nominators. But I don't think there's sense in letting this continue anymore. Sorry you've had to go through with this. Love and wishes, Lourdes 20:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Lourdes. I don't think there is much to gain in leaving this open any longer. It's an unfortunate outcome, but there is some useful feedback in the oppose section and I do believe that a second try later on could go much better. Lepricavark (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to agree. History indicates that RfAs which have this kind of trajectory rarely recover. It's a bitch, and you don;t deserve the treatment you're getting, but I think your best bet is to withdraw. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I have been on holiday all week and only just caught up with this. What nonsense! I cannot believe so many people seem to have a problem with you calling out questionable admin behaviour and asserting you would disengage from your complaint because nobody was listening. What's the problem with that? I don't see anyone actually bringing forth evidence that you would abuse the tools; instead I see a bunch of old-timers who don't like having their feathers ruffled. And then get upset when off-wiki criticism sites come into existence, as if the two things aren't in some way connected. I don't agree you should withdraw and I endorse your view that you should not run for RfA a second time. There are more important things in life. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

It Sucks

A single "I'm human and thus occasionally get grumpy" and it seems your pluses as a candidate get chucked out - isn't RfA a joy!

Sorry to see it going the way it is going - since all the opposes seem driven off that one incident or the content creation crew, if you withdraw it'd be great (as a fairly inexperienced ed) to see you again in 8 months.

Nosebagbear (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear and Lourdes: thank you both for your kind words. I am going to let this run out until the end. Evidently Oshwah came back from a 60% at their RfA. I do not really expect that to happen but I thought and still think I could do some good for the project as an administrator. That said I will not run again. I get where those voting oppose are coming from and I respect their opinions.

What gets me though are all of the people who somehow think I it is OK for a long term respected editor to make filthy insinuations about me and, instead of calling him on it, decide I 'should just ignore it'. Somehow so many of these people expect me to always be kind and even tempered but it is OK for them to chastise me for stamping out a false accusation of antisemitism from one of their number.

That kind of abuse hurts and hurts quite a bit - real life hurt not some wiki-argument annoyance and they can not separate the two. So no, there will be no second run. I'm willing to help improve stuff here but I am not willing to be kicked around more than once for the 'privilege' of doing it.

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 mean how can they see me as a person if they think I should be OK with that kind of accusation from an RfA participant. I tried my best to be open and honest but got chastised for that as well but…

Tomorrow should be a fine day for archery where I am so I am looking forward to going out in the back garden and spending some time at that. I wish you both a pleasant weekend wherever you may be. Jbh ^Talk 00:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to jump in here, with apologies to others for perhaps throwing the sequence of the page out of whack, to say that I don't think you should rule out running again in the future. While I am one of the opposing votes, I stand by my comment that I think your heart is in the right place. Wikipedia does tend to have a bit of a "what have you done for me lately" feel, when it comes to RfA, and I think that undue weight is sometimes given to recent events where a candidate may have let their passion or strong belief that they were in the right about something get in the way of their better judgement. I think that a candidate's totality of work should be considered more over recent events. I'd encourage you to let this run take its course, absorb the comments - good and bad - and give thought to another run in, say, late November or December, assuming that there are no additional "incidents" that could give folks cause for concern. Hang in there! Strikerforce^Talk 17:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Strikerforce: Thank you for the encouragement but I really do not think I could do another RfA as the process stands in good conscience. I have said a couple of times that I would take on board the comments made by people work to address the issues brought up. I respect the consensus process. Regrettably I see a consensus emerging from a significant portion of the community that an administrator must be bound by Wikipedia rules and norms even when off of Wikipedia.

I think Wikipedia is a great project but it is a comparatively minor part of my life. While I can work to address the other problems people see in my temperament I refuse to accept the premise that, outside of things like harassment etc, the community has any claim on how I deal with my life off of Wikipedia. If this RfA fails I strongly feel the improper delving into my off-wiki life (I had never linked my account here with my account there prior to another editor commenting on it on the RfA talk page. Things only got worse when I tried to be transparent about what I said there for those who could not see it. I guess I could have gone to ANI about OUTING but that would have probably been seen as worse.) was what pushed it over the edge. This does not mean I think I would have had an easy time of it otherwise and I know there may have been enough concerns about on-wiki issues for the RfA to fail. As things stand though it is a major element of many opposes and evidently why several supports were withdrawn. That being the case, no matter how I may improve in other ways, I will never be able to abide by that particular community requirement so I do not see how I could run again. I am keeping the RfA open in part so I can see how strong that particular consensus is. Maybe it will be rejected and my RfA still fails and there is a very, very slim chance that it will be rejected and the RfA will pass. I respect and can work on the other concerns brought up but not that one. Jbh ^Talk 18:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi JBH. As someone who went through a bitter and very stressful RfA I completely understand your feelings and I don't blame you. If mine had lasted another day I doubt I'd have passed and I had privately resolved that I would not go through it again. And yes, the pain is real. If you are sure you will not reconsider running again, then letting it run its course is no big deal. On which note, my confidence in RfA as an effective and adequate instrument for replenishing the ranks of administrators has been in decline for a while. I may have something more to say on that subject, but I am going to wait until after this closes. I think you are a great editor and thank you for stepping up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: thank you for the note and. especially, the moral support – that is really the kind that matters. Yes, I am sure I am not going to go this again. I'm not really disturbed by the people who do not hold me in high confidence based on how I handled the ArbCom case or any of the on-wiki stuff. That is fair comment and what they are supposed to be examining and that is the kind of input which would have either made me a better admin or alerted me to problematic areas to address in a second run. I'm not even particularly annoyed by the emm... insightful, uh... analysis over at GenderDesk.

What was completely unacceptable to me is Collect went over to Wikipediocracy and made a shit stirring accusation. I responded to the off-site matter. He then brought up the off-wiki material in a false light to stir shit at the RfA talk page. I had previously thought that was a pretty big no-no here – tying an off wiki account to a Wikipedia editor. I continued to deal with the off-wiki stuff off-wiki and he continued to use it to stir things here. I suppose I should have gone after him for OUTING but that would have derailed things just the same. So there I sat with Collect, a supposedly respected editor, stirring shit by using insinuation and out right lies and allowing the barrier of information flow to stir the pot more and more yet I'm the bad guy for providing everyone the information they were breathlessly speculating about.

Maybe people let Collect continue because they somehow think what he was doing was OK or maybe no one had the guts to put a stop to it or maybe no one was paying attention to the OUTING - I had not tied my WO account to WP on-wiki. I do not know but I am not willing to be put in that position again and the community seems to have decided they want people who will allow themselves to be attacked. I will always deal with off-site stuff in a manner appropriate to off-site disputes. I feel like I was left hanging. ArbCom has shown me they do not care about one-offs and opening an ANI would have been both self-destructive and futile. So, until there is a process that can deal with this kind of trolling or the community remembers that Wikipedia do not govern the behavior or lives of editors off of Wikipedia I will not do this again. I would however be glad to help put together something better. Jbh ^Talk 01:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

As someone who belongs to the "content creation crew" and who has voted Neutral thus far, I don't want to see Jbh withdraw. I know my opinion is practically worthless on this matter since Jbh and I have never come across one another, but I think he still has a decent chance of passing. Remember, RfAs that get between 65 and 75% support usually go to the discretion of a Bureaucrat. Jbh could be one of those candidates who stands out in a good way if that were to happen...again, just my thoughts and my opinion but I wanted to share it here because Jbh, I have a ton of respect for you to go through the brutal public pillory process that is the modern RfA. Statistics show that RfAs are extremely difficult to get through now-a-days, and the fact that you've got over 100 people supporting you despite all the criticism and opposition is something to be incredibly proud of, whether you pass or not.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 03:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I am so sick of the popular notion "withdraw to show us you can step back when the tide is against you, and come back in six months to show us that you are reformed!". Editors like Jbh volunteer for adminship because they are confident they can contribute better to the project with the tools; whether it passes or not shouldn't be a big deal. Disappointing, yes, but it's just a website and life goes on. Maybe this is a case that it's better to remain as a regular editor to have more flexibility in pushing for positive changes for the community. Alex Shih (talk) 04:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I too went through a stressful RFA, and while I'm sorry to see this at the level of support it's at, I'd encourage you to stick it out. You've offered the community your services; it doesn't reflect badly on you if you give us the full seven days to decide if we want them. As an aside, it's an unfortunate reality that even a tangential involvement in ARBIPA topics can cause mud being slung your way: I note that three of the eight participants in this mess who are still unblocked have appeared in the "oppose" column, two of whom are !voting at RFA for the first time: a battlegroundish tendency that was unfortunately common at my RFA, too. While there's a number of people I respect in the "oppose" column, there are at least a few others whose presence suggests you're doing something right. Vanamonde (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Jbh ^Talk while I am one of the poeple to oppose your RfA, I want you to know that I didn't take my decision likely. Since I do not know you nor have I ever worked with you, I can only base my decision based on the information I've gathered via your history and your interactions with the wiki community. For all I know, you could be a swell guy outside wiki, and my conclusion on your character is way off-base. And I want you to know that I based my decision in good faith and in respect of the RfA process, and made my vote not only from whether you're qualified to use the admin tools, but also if your interactions align with my moral compass, which I can only ask for and expect in return if the situation were reversed. I know that you've stated above that you would not go through an RfA process again. If that is true, that is disappointing. Because, I think you would have probably fared quite differently 8 or 9 months down the line, if you were to use this current RfA as a learning and assessment tool rather than a failed application attempt. Because I would not opposed to voting the other way if you were to apply again. Like I said in your RfA, thank you for applying and putting yourself forward, because as each year goes by, fewer and fewer editors are willing to step up and pick up the mop. Neovu79 (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Neovu79: Thank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning in more detail here. I appreciate it very much. I do not see doing RfA again in my future. Not because it was particularly battering. In general the opposes have been generally respectful and often, as here, kind. Even the small group some may hyperbolicly call 'grudge opposes' were pretty polite. The issue is one editor went far off the plot and no one stepped in to say what they were/are doing is inappropriate and people got upset which how I dealt with them off-site and others brought/allowed the off-site conflict to be brought on-site and no one shut it down once it did. Yeah I sound like a broken record but here's the thing:

The idea that candidates should not respond and if they do, and this is even on the RfA advice page, they will get 'penalized' by the community creates a period of vulnerability. I could have dealt with the 'Collect issue' by addressing the off-site stuff and nipped it in the bud by simply responding to Absolute OPPOSE by saying I did not challenge your oppose here or off-site - this is what I said and, if needed, brought the matter at ANI. Doing that would have sunk my RfA. So that depends on someone else stepping up but, again, that is not the culture of RfA. Yeah, admins need to have a thick skin but at some point that expectation slides into being abusive. I will not allow things to get to that point for me, RfA is just not that big a deal to me, but others might and I bet that is where so many of the 'RfA horror stories' come from. There is a line and either the candidate needs to feel free to enforce it or someone needs to step up and do it for them, RfA is supposed to be, at its core, about whether the candidate can be trusted with the tools.

Conflict management is not, or not always, wading into a hot mess and solving it. It is being able to recognize a problem and stepping in to deal with it before it becomes a hot mess. In Wikipedia terms that is often seen as 'drama-mongering', which is intensely frowned upon, so very few people will do so. Until RfA either no longer expects one to choose between standing helpless and 'loosing' ones RfA I will not submit to the process again. It is fine for people to respond to how one deals with this type of situation and what one chooses to respond to. That says something about the candidate. In this instance I could keep things from becoming a real-life mess but, because of community expectations, I let it get far bigger before stepping in here. It burned out at WO and Collect has walked back to normal Wikipedia levels of rhetoric so, apparently no harm done.

Maybe I would have failed anyway. Enough people had valid concerns about my temper(ment) before the mess and I knew it was not going to be a slam dunk when I started the RfA so I hope no one feels I am blaming failure on this one thing. I can see where people would not want me as an admin. I am OK with that, disappointed sure but OK with it. Again, thank you for the note and I hope you will forgive that I have used it as a chance to relax with a bit of exposition. Jbh ^Talk 14:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I see that your RfA went to 'crat status. Best of luck to you, no matter the outcome.  :) Neovu79 (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

		The Purple Barnstar
		"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." --GRuban (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all so very much for the words of encouragement. This, a good sleep and time with other activities has gotten me past my self-pity – I do not like that feeling but I guess no one does . A thing I find interesting is at RfA it is only possible to analyze editors based on past behavior and how they handle the conflict without the tools. Most people simply project forward without considering how having access to functions like block, protect and DS would necessarily modify their behavior i.e. the primary concern, to me, is whether one can be confident a person will not reach for the tools in a situation where their objectivity/temper has been compromised. I know I would not. To me doing such a thing is an abhorrent breach of trust – I think I might have commented on that a time or two.

I do not know a solution for that short of a crystal ball. I seem to have made the same kind of mistake in the past and now that I have seen it from the other side I owe an apology once this is over.

There is some interesting literature not just decision making in the presence of incomplete information but also on how difficult it is for one to change one's mind in the presence of new or changed information (This is particularly true in elections and 'swing' voters and is where most people would have encountered the concepts but Richards Heuer's material considers a more general case which is, interestingly and possibly worth an essay in itself, easier to apply to cases encountered on Wikipedia.) Once there is some distance from this for me I think it would be worth an essay. I will restrain myself from further musings for now even though it more applicable to managing the various DS areas and ANI dynamics than RfA.

Again, thank you all. This process has given me much to reflect upon. Jbh ^Talk 17:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to suggest anything to you as to what you should do, but I just want to stop by and give you my sincere moral support, and my best wishes that you will not feel hurt by the experience. In the great scheme of things, nothing that happens at Wikipedia is really a big deal – after all, it's only a website. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry to see your RFA go rather downhill, I genuinely did think you'd sail through but unfortunately not, Not everyone has great RFAs unfortunately that's just the way the site works, I'll also add you can't please everyone here either,

Anyway nonetheless your contributions are greatly appreciated and If not successful first time round I hope you retry in a year or 2 as like I said at OCRP and RFA you'd still make an excellent admin :), Take care, –Davey2010^Talk 20:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

RfA

It’s just one !vote, but I’ve taken the time to reaffirm my support for your RfA. Despite the valid issues raised by some opposes, I think you’d make a good administrator, and that is what we’re supposed to be deciding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Thank you. That means a lot, particularly from someone who has been on the other side of my, at times, rough tongue. I get most of the opposes but I admit to puzzlement about some of the others. All in all if dropping an issue, however ungracefully, results in this much opprobrium (I know that is not the only reason this failed) I'm obviously not the type of person desired by many in the community regardless of whether I would hold myself to higher standards in administrative activities than I have held others.

At ArbCom I remember commenting that since so many admins did not see a problem where I did that I must be missing something and I should write a few articles and give RfA a try to get an idea of the perspective I was missing. … I think I have that perspective now. I doubt more than a half-dozen of the active admins would even have a chance of passing a reconfirmation RfA regardless of whether they benefit the project overall. There are so many things people find to be wrong that I bet it becomes a desensitizing cacophony of woe nothing really stands out from until it becomes a true 'dumpster fire'. I get it now and I am so glad I do not have your job here.

Again, thank you. Jbh ^Talk 17:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

You are entitled to a nonzero number of beers for persevering through this one. It ain't over til it's over, but just saying thanks for being a dedicated enough contributor to throw your hat in regardless. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Thank you... I shall enjoy one (possibly more) whilst I await the soothing contralto of a well fleshed damsel to lull me into a brief, sweet oblivion. Jbh ^Talk 22:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I’ve seen enough. Switching to suppport

Hey Jbh, I think I’ve seen enough in your RfA for me to switch my neutral vote to support. I’ll be getting to that later today. I’ll explain more in my vote but I wanted to message you that if this RfA doesn’t pass, I hope you will consider running again in just a few months (despite your reluctance to do so), perhaps as early as Christmas. I’d be willing to help you with any content creation you wanted to dive into as well to boost your admin credentials, as many of those who voted oppose or neutral seem to rely on that issue at least in part for their vote. Hope this process hasn’t kept you down, you’ve still got a good chance of passing!—White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 18:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@White Shadows: Thank you and thank you for the offer of help with content. Once I finish this draft I would like to take it through GA. Help with that would be great since the ins and outs of the GA process are unfamiliar to me. The other articles I have written are really just spin-offs from my work on Ignatius – his father, brothers and birthplace. Essentially names that could be blue-linked in that article for completeness sake, although Innocenzo turned out to be rather interesting in his own right.

As to RfA. Nah, disappointed some but, a bit puzzled in a couple instances but not down. People have generally been quite kind even in their opposition. Thank you for taking the time to look into my history here. Jbh ^Talk 01:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I second this. Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates#After your RfA has some good advice either way. It looks like it is in 'crat chat territory at the moment, barring any significant changes. If it doesn't pass, I join White Shadows in their hope that you would consider a future run (maybe around Christmas?). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

If we can help Jbh get some content creation under their belt, I think a second RfA around Christmas time would stand a very high chance of passing. I respect whatever decision you chose to make Jbh but I think you've definitely got some people who would be interested in supporting a second RfA if it ever comes to it. Either way, please don't hesitate to let me know what I can do to help you get any of your potential articles to GA-status. Happy to help edit, or review it when the time comes to move it over to the mainspace.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 02:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Don't give up or get dispondent, stranger things can happen. .I'm very disappointed to see your RfA going this way. There are of course some acceptable rationales from highly respected users. but all the pile ons, especially from new, or fairly new users, amount basically now to grave dancing. It's in 'crat chat territory now but the gross misuse of the comments section may well influence them one way or the other. I'm just sorry there's nothing I can do but keep my fingers crossed for a favourable outcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The numbers are very similar to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing, so I'd expect at least a 'crat chat. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Went up to 69%. I would expect a 'crat chat as well. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Came here to tell you I support your request RfA and that I really hope you consider running again should the request not go in your favor. I have a fair amount of GA Reviews under my belt and I'll be happy to be another pair of eyes on your work. Ping me when needed! MX (✉ • ✎) 18:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Well, it's certainly turned out to be quite a roller-coaster, however it will be decided, and I really cannot blame you or anyone else for feeling whipped around by said roller-coaster. But I do have an observation that I think is very important not to lose sight of. There have been almost 200 editors who have come to the RfA in order to support. That's a lot of support, by any measure! So even if the oppose comments decide the outcome (and I have not a clue as to whether or not they actually will), the large number of Wikipedians who do support cannot and should not be overlooked. That is genuinely something to be proud of. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• The 'crats are going to have to be very careful how they handle this now. Deliberately holding it open and doing nothing, although several of them are around, is going to invite complaints of them closing it when they see the result they want. Whether JBH minds or not, it's a matter of principle. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Regardless of what happens, please don't get discouraged from contributing in the future. Know that your work is valued. Sro23 (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Advice

I just wanted to give a bit of advice. I don't know if you are a sports fan, but if you are, I recommend you watch the European Championships so that you can relax instead of having to be stressed with the RfA result. It is just a bit of advice and it is quite popular in Europe at the moment. Or, you could watch something else or do something you enjoy. I wish you good luck in your RfA. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hello Jbhunley, your RfA has been placed on hold pending the results of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jbhunley/Bureaucrat chat. Thank you for your patience while we work on this. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think I've ever seen an RfA recover in that way. The graph is interesting [7]. Another couple of days and you might have gone back above 75%. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. That is an interesting trend and atypical. So far three 'crats believe there to be consensus to promote (one recused and one stating no consensus), but we shall see what happens. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Jbh… so sorry I failed to Support your RfA. I only noticed it just a short while ago. When successful, I have every confidence that you will be a fair and impartial administrator. Best to you. ―Buster7 ☎ 06:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 5 years ago I ran the same gauntlet, unsuccessfully. Years before that, you and I were involved in a dialogue about "enemy lists". Not yours or mine... someone else's. It might be interesting to investigate how many other quality candidates had their RfA's negatively influenced by foul play. Nevermind tho! I survived and so will you. ―Buster7 ☎
• This stinks. I have been an admin for 12 years and I haven't seen anything like this. I don't see how anyone can think that you would be dangerous with the mop. That, in a nutshell is the only criteria as far as I am concerned. --rogerd (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Unfortunately consensus was not reached to grant the administrative toolset at this time. Please keep in mind that nearly 200 people supported you for adminship and many of those in opposition seemed willing to support a future candidacy after their concerns had been addressed. Thank you for your offer to serve as administrator. –xeno^talk 21:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for your patience during the CratChat, I had been hoping to avoid it, but even after several hours of deliberation I thought there may have been something I missed. As for some unsolicited advice should you rerun: "content creation" complaints are easy to overcome by showing productivity elsewhere, but "conduct" type complaints are harder to counter with positive conduct examples - however, that opposition becomes weak as examples age, so please keep up all of the constructive work you have been doing - as many of your supporters showed it is much appreciated. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 23:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Kelly D. Brownell article

Hello!

I'm MDrozdowski and wanted to get in touch with you about the Kelly D. Brownell article I worked on recently. As you've noted, I have declared a COI with this article, however, I wanted to see what your objections were. I thoroughly respect Wikipedia's NPOV rules, and tried to stick to them very stringently. I know you didn't like the number of journals named in the article, however, I felt they were needed to establish notability.

My goal here is to be a respectful, if paid, editor for Wikipedia articles. With that in mind, would you mind sharing where the article went astray? I had a number of other Wikipedia editors take a look at it, especially because the original article had so many issues with no COI declared and the author not being able or willing to maintain NPOV. My hope is to learn from any errors, so as not to make those again. Any insight you'd like to share would be warmly welcomed.

Thank you!

Mdrozdowski (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry you didn't make it...

...But keep in mind you nearly got 200 votes in support! That's definitely something to be proud of. I know you said you didn't want to run again, but if you are interested in it the future, I have a good feeling it'll pass. In the meantime, let me know if you ever want to get more involved in content creation. I'd be happy to help however I can, and I'm sure others would be too.

All the best,

--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 21:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

^All of the above from me too. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a shame to see things turn out that way. I don't blame you for never wanting to run again, although I hope you eventually reconsider. Reyk _YO! 21:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

^I also echo White Shadows. I had no doubt in my mind you would have been a positive asset to the sysop team, and I’m very sorry it transpired this way. —Zingarese talk · contribs 21:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I had really hoped this would succeed, but I think the bureaucrat chat reached a sensible conclusion based on the RfA's contents. It really could have gone either way. You would make an outstanding admin, and I do hope you consider running again in the future. In a year, the ArbCom message will be long forgotten. A single Good Article between then and now would greatly improve your chances as well. I can provide a subject and sources on a Canadian football biography if you'd like. Your work is valued, and whether or not you wield the mop, it will continue to greatly improve the encyclopedia. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

And now that I've noticed the message you left for OR, I can only strengthen my sentiments. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

A second RfA will pass easily. The 'crat chat, like the RfA itself, depends on who turns out. I found WTT's comment extremely powerful. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Chin up JBH, whether you decide to continue with admin aspirations or remain a did-it-once peer of mine, you are a valued member of the community. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• It is a shame you didn't go through. I was hoping you'll pass. Damn it we need more people like you upstairs. We've never interacted before but I am impressed with your work and the way you carried yourself in that RfA - and voted accordingly. I hope you change your mind and stand again. My commiserations. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• I second everything said above in this section. I hope you consider a future run. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You

		The Original Barnstar
		For stepping up. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• A broken process indeed, but the project itself is also broken in many ways. I am quite tired from this ordeal. Just wanted to say you were a class act during the process. Alex Shih (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry your nomination went down so spectacularly. Your being falsely anti-semitic-baited by an axe grinder or two was a red herring that will be gone in six months and long gone in a year. The real issue was lack of content creation. It won't take a lot to get you over the hump next time — start three halfway decent articles and take them to roughly B level. You'd be confirmed 225-16 a year hence. Alternatively, don't run again and let the cabal stew in their own putrid juices as the admin corps continues to dwindle. Your call. Best regards, — tim /// Carrite (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about your RfA

Hey Jbhunley. I’m sorry that in your conduct, attitude, and demeanour, you’ve given a substantial number of contributors compelling reason to believe you are not a suitable candidate for the power and responsibility of adminship. Your lack of significant content work would suggest that adminship with the attendant access to exclusive tools unavailable to regular users was your ultimate goal - a goal in and of itself. So I can certainly understand that it must be devastating and demoralising for you to know that there are so many in the community who feel so strongly that you are not fit for the mop.

I really hope it doesn’t get to you though. You should remember that you will always be important here, but you will be important as an ordinary editor and not as an admin. You can still report problems and let successful admins handle the blocking. I’m sure you will always be welcome at ANI (although you may need to include the “non-admin comment” statement to avoid confusion among less experienced editors). Anyway, cheers! FeArtProf (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)