Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 4

Nihonjoe

Voice your opinion (talk page) (96/3/0); scheduled to end 05:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Nihonjoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – First I'll give the basic background information to bring you up to speed: I've been an active editor of Wikipedia since September 2005. I founded Wikiproject Japan in March 2006 when I found out it didn't exist. Since then, it's grown into a large project working on tens of thousands of articles. I also helped craft WP:MOS-JA and WP:MOS-ANIME, and have helped expand, modify, and maintain them since they were created.

Since May 2006, I've been an active admin here and participated in a wide range of admin activities (Xfd, CSD, DRV, etc.), as well as participating in various policy and guideline discussions and participating in RfA and RfB discussions (more often in the last several months in order to address concerns raised in my last RfB in June). I'm very active at WP:UAA and participate when possible at WP:CHU. I am an OTRS volunteer, regularly answering a wide range of questions sent in via email.

I'm a minor contributor on many non-English language Wikipedias, mostly interwiki links and translation of articles from Japanese to English. I also contribute to Commons, uploading pics I've taken as well as moving to Commons many properly licensed images from the Japanese and English Wikipedias.

I have a solid understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and a solid understanding of what it takes to be a good admin. I believe I would be a solid bureaucrat as well, and humbly offer my services as such.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nom, so yes. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A. Yes, many times over the years. Candidates are promoted based on consensus, with the discussions and comments being considered appropriately. If there is some uncertainty about a potential promotion, then the bureaucrats may discuss the issue to come to a consensus on the consensus.

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

A. I would make sure everything was even more thoroughly scrutinized than is usual (and yes, I think each candidacy discussion should be carefully reviewed in order to make sure a clear understanding of consensus is obtained), and I would discuss the issues and possible outcomes with other bureaucrats in order to come to a determination of what the consensus is. Then I would present that decision in clear language in the closing comment in order to make sure the thought processes which led to the decision were laid out logically. This would allow any member of the community here to gain an understanding of how the decision was reached.

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

A. I think the experience I've gained over the years working with editors from many different projects (and those not affiliated with any projects), as well as my work with OTRS, has given me the ability to approach issues from a neutral POV. I do my best to maintain a solid understanding of the various policies I work with by reviewing them regularly as well as reviewing them when I'm addressing a specific issue which has come up. WHile I have had my differences with other editors here, I have tried to maintain a good working relationship with as many as possible. I have even patched up past misunderstandings with one editor, and have since worked on a few things with him.

Adding the following questions which I think are applicable and have been asked of me in the past.

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

A. Yes, unless the issue being discussed would unnecessarily invade the privacy of the individual concerned.

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

A. Yes. I also regularly work at WP:UAA.

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

A. Yes.

Optional question from Aitias (asked at my previous RfB, and I thought it would give some insight into my thought processes)

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

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

For the Orlady discussion, I think this was very close, and I think the closure could have gone either way and been valid. I probably would have closed it as no consensus, but I respect Anonymous Dissident's closure as valid.
For the Smith609 discussion, this one (again) was very close and the closure could have gone either way. In this case, I would have closed it as successful for the reasons expressed by bibliomaniac15.
For the Rootology discussion, this one (again—you seem to have picked a lot of them like this) was very close. In this case, it was closed with reasoning that we need to forgive editors who have shown they are turning over a new leaf. While I agree with this idea, I also find many of the comments voicing concern over how soon it was after he was unbanned to be compelling and I likely would have closed it as unsuccessful due to how close it was, how serious the raised concerns were, and how recently he was unbanned.
For lustiger seth, this one is difficult. He basically needed the tools for development-type reasons (working with the WP:SBL), If it weren't for the admin status on dewiki and meta, I would have closed it as unsuccessful without any question at all. However, as he has been working on the same issue on other wikis, and has been trusted with the admin bit on both meta and dewiki, I agree with the reasoning given by Deskana in closing the discussion as successful.
I agree with the closing comments from WJBscribe on the Cirt discussion, and I would have closed the discussion in the same manner.
I would have closed the Zedla discussion as no concensus, and I'm concerned at the lack of any closing comments at all on this discussion. Due to the extremely low participation in the discussion (55 total participants who expressed opinions), I don't think there were enough people expressing support for the nomination to make a valid successful closure decision.
The Number 57 discussion was a difficult one. While some of the concerns raised by those opposed to the nomination, there was clear evidence of canvassing against the nominee (whether those doing the canvassing thought it was canvassing or not). I think this one could have gone either way, and while I likely would have closed it as no consensus, I can understand how it could also be closed as successful. No closing comments on this one concerned me as I think that any potentially controversial closure should have a clear explanation of why the final decision was made, as well as the thought process behind the decision.
I would have likely closed as unsuccessful the LessHeard vanU discussion as I do not believe a sufficient support was shown to justify a successful closure. This discussion was very close, however, so I do not fault the successful closure.
I remember the Carnildo discussion quite well. I would have closed it as unsuccessful as there was very clearly no consensus for a successful closure despite the various attempts at reasoning offered by Taxman and others. While bureaucrats are given some leeway when making decisions which are close calls (such as most of the ones listed here in this question), I do not believe this closure fell anywhere near the leeway allowed for such closures.
I would make no changes to the unsuccessful close of the Aitias 2 discussion as I don't believe adequate support was shown to support a successful outcome. The concerns raised in opposition were valid and carried a lot of weight in this discussion.
The Avraham 2 was close, as noted in the Bureaucrat discussion (which I think was a very good idea in this case). If I had been participating in that discussion, I would have closed it as unsuccessful as well. I think the reasoning offered in the linked discussion is very well thought out and a valid interpretation of consensus.
I agree with the closure of the Ral315 discussion. While bureaucrats have some discretion interpreting "close" discussions, I don't believe this discussion falls within that "gray area". I don't believe sufficient support was shown for a successful close.
On the Quadell discussion, I don't believe sufficient support was shown. While I believe many of the oppose opinions were somewhat weak, I think this was offset by the number of support opinions which offered no explanation for the opinion. Therefore, I don't believe sufficient support was shown for a successful close.
I agree with the reasoned discussion on the closure of the Riana discussion. The oppose opinions expressed were very clear and valid (as opposed to being frivolous), so they carried a lot of weight in the final decision. I believe the the issues raised in opposition were significant enough to support the unsuccessful close of this very close discussion.
The Andrevan3 discussion was a close one, and could have been closed either way. I would have held a discussion with other bureaucrats (such as those used in some of the other discussions mentioned here) in this case in order to determine proper consensus. I think this one was close enough to warrant such a discussion.

Additional optional questions from Backslash Forwardslash

8. This is your fourth RfB. Aren't you concerned that some may think of you as power hungry?

A: Not really. What I hope people see is someone who wants to help out in more areas. I've already done quite a lot across many admin areas, and I think I'd be useful and do a good job as a bureaucrat as well. I think my track record as an admin speaks for itself and shows that I'm not here for the power. Most of my time on the site is spent improving the encyclopedia in various ways, not trying to seek favor among the powerful or influential. Someone needs to do the job, and I think I have what it takes to be an effective and useful bureaucrat. Simple as that. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from seresin—

9. What closing action would you take on these RfXs. Why.

^demon 3: This is a tough one. On the one hand, he could have received the bit back by simply asking for it, and no one would really have been able to comment about it much (though I'm sure there would have been some commenting on it regardless). On the other hand, he chose to go through the process seemingly for process' sake which is a bit of a waste of time for everyone involved (as pointed out by a few people in the discussion there). This discussion could really have been decided either way after an evaluation of all the comments made during the discussion. While at the time, there was only one 'crat who was really active (and therefore the one to close the discussion), I think I would have attempted to hold a discussion of the request first to see if several 'crats could have come to agreement on an outcome. I think in this case, if I was closing it without a 'crat discussion first, I would probably have decided to close it as unsuccessful due to some of the concerns raised and how many people opposed based on those objections. ^demon chose to go through the process again even though he didn't have to, so I think the generally-accepted standards for such discussions should have been generally applied. I do see how WJBscribe came to his decision, however, and I think it's a valid and acceptable decision to conclude such a difficult discussion. As I mentioned already, this one really could have gone either way given the very unusual circumstances, and I do not fault WJScribe for coming to the conclusion he did.
Gracenotes: After reviewing the discussions (the RfA, the 'crat chat, and the talk pages), I can't say I would have done anything differently. I think Cecropia handled it very well, and I think it was closed as it should have been. Sorry I can't give you more, but I'm in complete agreement with this decision.
DHMO 3: I don't recall every seeing an RfA with so many optional questions (and one of the questions were broken into seven sub-questions!). This one is another doozy (I suspect that's why you picked them). If you determined consensus entirely by percentages, this one would have passed with about 78% or so (299 support and 85 oppose). However, consensus is not merely a numbers game. There were significant issues raised during this one, including the possibility of significant canvassing via email and issues involving a serious lack of judgement and propriety on the part of the nominee. I would have closed it as "no consensus to promote" due to the serious issues raised and not (in my opinion) seriously addressed. As it was, the candidate withdrew their candidacy, so the issue became moot. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10. To what degree may/must bureaucrats disregard particular rationales/votes on RfXs? Which of these do you believe the community allows/expects bureaucrats to disregard or assign considerably less weight when closing an RfX?

If there is obvious canvassing or sockpuppeting going on, those !votes are generally disregarded from what I've seen. In some extreme cases, the RfA is started over or closed and restarted at a later time. I'm in the camp that believes that an oppose opinion must always include a reason for the oppose, so I don't think opposes giving no rationale should be given the same weight as one which clearly explains the reasoning behind the opinion (even if the reasoning is concise). Outside of that, I don't think any opinions or comments should be disregarded. I think all the opinions in a discussion should be read, considered, and weighed with all the others before coming to a decision regarding the consensus in the discussion. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So to clarify, you think that Oppose, self nomination is prima facie evidence of power hunger is just as valid as Oppose, candidate has actively attempted to out editors whom he does not like, and that the community expects the bureaucrats to accord equal weight to those rationales? ÷seresin 06:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, as the first is a blanket statement that can't and doesn't apply to everyone. The second, if accompanied by diffs backing up the accusation, is a much more solid reason for opposing. Anyone with decent common sense can see the difference between the two statements, and I expect (and believe that many others do, too) bureaucrats to apply common sense and good judgement when considering and weighing various arguments presented during a discussion. They are expected to be able to exercise good judgement when deciding consensus; if they haven't shown they have a clue, then they shouldn't be a bureaucrat. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You just said that one reason (the second) is "much more solid" than the other. You said in your previous response that "you don't think any opinions or comments should be disregarded" and that bureaucrats employ judgment when "considering and weighing various arguments presented during a discussion". This sounds a lot to me like you will be giving different weight to different rationales. I am asking you what rationales you think have less weight and will afford less weight when closing, and also which rationales the community expects you to give less weight. (We might have a problem with wording here, as you only referenced 'disregarding' votes. I am interested in disregarded votes as well as votes which are more valid when determining consensus.) ÷seresin 00:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, different rationales may be given different weights as that only makes sense. Your first example is obviously less substantial than "Oppose, candidate has actively attempted to out editors whom he does not like", especially if the second is (or can be) backed up by diffs. While both should be investigated, if the first opinion is given no further clarification it can't be given as much weight as the second (especially if it's backed up by diffs—I should note that any such accusation must be backed up by diffs provided by the editor making the claim or by others who are also aware of the issue—or it is no longer substantial). That's all I'm saying. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I trying to get you to answer. Do you have opinions on which rationales are not valid or less valid? We would have a bot if bureaucrats were not expected to weigh validity of rationales; I want to know how you are going to do that. ÷seresin 07:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think making a list of that would be stick beans in our ears. I think I've answered the question clearly enough with my current responses to give you a good idea of what may or may not be considered weightier. Suffice it to say that the more clear a rationale is the better, and if it has diffs if necessary to prove the opinion (especially in the case of accusations of varying degrees of misconduct), all play into how much weight an opinion is given. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11. We have had recent resysoppings of administrators who request the flag back after having relinquished the flag. Some were granted by bureaucrats who were unaware, of varying degrees of flagrancy, of the history of the administrator's flag. After the last one, it seems a policy may have been adopted of waiting 24 hours after such a request has been made on BN before granting the request (see this for a current example). The questions: can administrators who may not have resigned "under a cloud" be denied automatic re-flagging based on concerns regarding the administrator raised at the time of asking? If so, what sort of concerns must they be, and how will you deal with any conflicting opinions of the bureaucracy regarding the validity of these concerns? Also, what action would you take if an administrator made a request to you personally (i.e. not posting at BN)?

I think that unless the concerns are significant (such as serious trust issues, blatant disregard for policies and guidelines, or something similar), there shouldn't be any real obstacles to an admin receiving the bit again if they voluntarily relinquished the bit for non-controversial reasons. If there is ever any question, I would always consult with other 'crats to determine a group consensus on the issue. If someone asked me personally, I would refer them to post to WP:BN. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from Dweller

12. What would be your assessment of the reasons for the failure of your first three RfBs? Why would these reasons be inaccurate or no longer correct? Thanks for running.

A: The first one, it seemed mostly to be that some people thought there was no need for more 'crats. That, and a very small number of participants. As I expressed in that RfA, I didn't think that reason was a valid reason then, nor do I think it's a valid reason now. I don't think there should be an upper limit on the number of admins or bureaucrats.

The second one, for several reasons: people thought I would only count votes (which is a blatant misrepresentation of what I expressed there); a few people mentioned that they hadn't seen me around (on WT:RFA and other places); and a few people disagreed with my opinions on a few RfAs. The first reason was never accurate as I've never thought RfA was simply a vote counting process. If it was, we would just have a bot process the discussions. The second is valid and has been addressed as I've participated much more regularly there and other related places. As for the third, everyone one will ever agree with everything I do, and there's not much I can do about that. The best I can do is make sure I work within policy and follow consensus.

The third one, the main concern was that I wasn't participating on WT:RFA and other 'crat areas. I believe I have shown that I understand these areas and that I can participate in them regularly over a long period of time. I am a very active participant at WP:UAA, and I participate on WP:CHU when there is something there to do (there are several others who are very active there, and they seldom leave anything undone).

I hope that answers your question. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Keepscases

13. Please name any particular users you are considering nominating for administrator or bureaucrat, or are looking forward to supporting.

A: At the moment, I'm not really considering anyone. I asked User:Alansohn about it a while back (as several others had mentioned him as a possibility for RfA), but he never really replied to my inquiry so I don't know what he thinks about it. I had considered asking User:Fg2 before he died, but I wasn't able to follow through on that before he left us. No others come immediately to mind. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Risker

14 One of the key areas for bureaucrats is the assessment of consensus; however, while discussion of a previously closed RFA can illustrate one's general philosophy, most of us are already well aware of the historically contentious cases. I'd like to see some of your work in action. Please provide half a dozen or so examples where you have formally assessed consensus with a written rationale; at least two of these examples should be relatively complex, such as an AfD with more than 10 comments and noticeable split in support/oppose, or a DRV that received more than 15 comments.

A: I'll see what I can find:

I am running into a problem finding closures which meet your criteria as I don't tend to be wordy when closing discussions, even when explaining the reasoning. There are a couple above which are longer, though, so hopefully they will help you. Also, I don't recall having ever closed a DRV, though I have participated in a fair number. If you look through my talk archives, you can see instances where I explained why I closed a discussion as I did. I'll see if I can be more specific than "browse through my talk archives". Thanks for your patience. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here is an example of me wordily explaining a decision. here is another. And another. Please let me know if you have any other questions. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Davidwr

15 Of the deletions and the blocks, about what percentage are "clean up duty" like obvious CSDs, nearly unanimous XfDs, troll/vandal blocks, etc., and about what percentage required some thought?

A: Of which deletions and blocks? If you mean the ones I've done, I couldn't give you hard and fast numbers as there are far too many to remember clearly. I would say the percentages would likely be similar to what they are for RfAs, though, where most of them are pretty clear which way consensus is going, and there are a few (maybe 10-20%) which require more detailed scrutiny in order to determine consensus.

16 You now have more support in about 2 days than in your entire June 2009 RFB or either of your 2007 RFBs. What do you think changed?

A: I suspect it has something to do with what I outlined in my answer to question 12, above. I took the information and advice given in those, and applied them to improve. I believe I have improved in all those areas, too.

17 Why do you want to be a 'crat? To put in another way, of the ways 'crats can serve the project above and beyond what you currently serve, which one do you plan on focusing on the most?

A: I think I would be mainly focused on WP:CHU as that seems to be the 'crat area which gets the biggest backlog (even though WP:BRFA tends to have a more in-depth backlog regularly). I've given other reasons for wanting to be a 'crat in various comments and replies given above. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from WJBscribe

17. If, as a bureaucrat, you were considering a request from a user that you knew had previously been declined by one or more other bureacrats (for instance a rename request that was declined previously or a request for the restoration of admin rights where another bureaucrat had determined that there were circumstances that meant the user should have a new RfA), how would this affect your decision to perform/decline the requested action?

A: If I was aware of the previous request(s), I would discuss the issue with them (the previous 'crats) as well as with the other 'crats just to make sure everything was on the up-and-up and to make sure I didn't miss something of which they might be aware. Only then would I make a decision to accept or decline their request. This reminds me somewhat of a kid asking one parent for something, then asking the other when they get denied and before they have time to discuss it. If it turns out they were just forum shopping, they would get denied very quickly as I have no tolerance for that. If they were asking for a review of the decision, then I'd discuss with the other 'crats for the reasons already given. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

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

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe before commenting.

Discussion

Edit stats on talk - courtesy of 7. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Strong support - I respect his judgment as an admin - no reason to doubt him as a crat. がんばりましょう！ 7 06:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I supported before, and I'll support again. Nihonjoe has shown himself to be very knowledgeable in policy and patient throughout his editing career, the brand of person we want as a crat. bibliomaniac 1 5 06:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suppport Beuracratship is no big deal, despite what you may have heard.--Tznkai (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Of course! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am supporting because Joe has shown a long-term commitment to username issues, which is the area of cratting that we have the greatest backlog in. I am confident that through his OTRS and UAA experience he knows how to work in a team-environment and given his long tenure on the wiki, has a conservative outlook on change. MBisanz ^talk 07:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't see a reason to oppose. I'm struggling to understand many of the opposes in the previous RfBs, and Joe seems to have all the right attributes for the big B. Ged UK 09:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support this most suitable candidate. Crafty (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The candidate has rectified the reasons I had for opposing last time since the last attempt by being involved more in the crat areas and as such I see no reason to oppose this request. As Tznkai says, cratship is, despite what some people think, not a big deal and every committed admin with a good track record like Nihonjoe should be promoted to crat. Regards So Why 11:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - trustworthy admin. PhilKnight (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seen enough evidence of this candidate's good judgement to be confident they wont misuse the extra tools. From RFA talk it sounds like an existing crat is having to interrupt their studies to stop one of the backlogs becoming unmanageable. Its not on! Hats off to Joe for being brave enough to run this gauntlet for the fourth time. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I opposed the third RfB run, but none of the issues remain IMO. And if this guy is power hungry, he's very bad at it ... years between the second and third run, and more than 5 months since the third? Come on. - Dank (push to talk) 12:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as I did in the last RfB. The fact that the candidate has taken time to rectify concerns brought up last time makes me even more willing to support. Good luck. Tim meh 12:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've trusted his judgement in what seems like a few RFAs now. Doc Quintana (talk) 12:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Dank. Sluggo | Talk 14:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have found this user to be level headed, easy to work with and quite reasonable. Being active at UAA myself I see quite a bit of him and have no complaints about what I have seen; this could only be a net positive. Shereth 14:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. I supported last time with a bit of reluctance, but now the candidate has immersed himself in RfAs, CHU, and UAA, I'm more than happy to support our next 'crat. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think Joe has overcome the oppose rationales from last time, and has consistently shown himself to be a thoughtful contributor capable of taking in all aspects of an argument. MBisanz put it best, as Joe has worked in several areas where similar skills (decision making, working in a group, taking in a myriad of opinions) are requisite. しかたがない, there is no other choice. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Dank covers my thoughts fairly well. I'm impressed by what I see if the candidate's edits, and I think it's also telling that several of these first few Supports come from editors who opposed the last RFB in June. No concerns about granting this candidate the flag (shovel? He already has a mop). Good luck, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)s[reply]
Shovel, I love it. Probably a good implement to have when digging through RfAs. - Dank (push to talk) 15:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Full Support I think it is safe to say that I was probably the single loudest voice behind Nihonjo's last RfB failing. I felt that his participation and involvement in 'crat areas was seriously lacking, and that after 2 failed RfB's his failure to take the communities concerns to heart was disenheartening. After his last RfB, he took our comments and criticisms to heart and acted upon them. I have full faith in his ability, I went to his talk page before "retiring" and told him that he had overcome my objection.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - I trust Nihonjoe with bureaucratship.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 16:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nihonjoe has been incredibly helpful at UAA and I like the reasoning seen in answer 7. -- Atama頭 16:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Capable candidate. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns from last time are no longer there. 4th time lucky! Majorly talk 17:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hell yes!. Very capable, I have had positive interaction with NihonJoe and he will make a great 'crat. Valley2city^‽ 17:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see no major problems. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Don't see why not. :) A8 UDI 19:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think Joe is capable of this role now, thus my support. --Kanonkas : Talk 19:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thoughtful and clueful. Good answers to the questions on Rfa's. Will assist the project, undoubtedly. Willing to learn from mistakes, too, which is a must. Best wishes! Jusdafax 19:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nihonjoe has demonstrated thoughtfulness and good judgement in the many places I've seen him active. Good luck. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should have got this sooner. GARDEN 20:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suport Thumbs up. Warrah (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Look good. Comment on bureaucratship: I think bureaucratship is even less of a big deal than adminship, since (1) username change is a responsibility relegated to bureaucrat only due to tradition, and could frankly be done by any admin (it is nowhere near as "momentous" a decision as page protection/deletion or user blocks); (2) bot approvals are typically non-controversial afaik, though they need a degree of clue; (3) RFA closures are well scrutinized by the community, so there is little chance for a bureaucrat to "go rogue"; in cases where the !votes percentage is near the borderline, the community input can be interpreted as saying that either decisions are justifiable. So, as long as a candidate is experienced, clueful, good communicator and has no redflags in their history (which will lead the community to, rightly or wrongly, question his/her decisions), I will be happy to support. Abecedare (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Some people have enormously high standards for bureaucratship that are generally unreasonable, unfair, and irrelevant to bureaucratship. It is harder being an admin than a bureaucrat by a long way. Majorly talk 20:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh, that hurts! :-) --Deskana (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has always shown clue and level-headedness, concerns from previous RfBs have been alleviated. GlassCobra 20:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Jake Wartenberg 21:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Joe has good levels of clue and experience in the area of RfA. I have no reservations in supporting, as he will be a fine addition to the ranks. JamieS93 21:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Supported last time and that rationale still stands. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support An excellent candidate for the position. Nihonjoe has clearly alleviated the concerns voiced at his previous RfB. Aside from his excellent work on articles and portals, he's shown solid judgement and understanding of policy as an administrator. His answers to the questions above also compel me to support his candidacy. Furthermore, his work at WP:UAA shows the intimate knowledge of username policy that will help him at the backlogged WP:CHU and WP:CHUU. Thus far, no valid reasons to oppose have been raised. Therefore, I offer Nihonjoe my strong support in his bid for bureaucratship. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because he'll do just fine, and I believe bureaucratship is no big deal. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? Ray^Talk 23:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A seasoned and competent administrator, I see no reason not to trust him with the bureaucrat tools. faithless (^speak) 23:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support From what I can see, he has the right amount of experience. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 00:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A clueful editor and excellent candidate. Airplaneman ^talk 01:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - I most certainly trust you with bureaucratship. Thank you for everything you have done here. Smithers (Talk) 03:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I trust him. Supported last time, no reason not to now. –Katerenka ^☆ 09:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has the experience and trust. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 09:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Has a clue. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I looked at the last RfB, and I think the concerns have been adressed. Has my trust, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 13:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Super-Absolutely-Certainly-Positively Support - Experienced editor, judgements are as good as ArbCom members.----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 13:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Was a great admin. Décémbér21st2012Fréak | ^Talk 14:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But not anymore? ;p ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
support Trust this user to have a mostly level head. Hobit (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joe is active in UAA and CHU and I'm satisfied by his answers. No problem in this; he can only help in clearing the backlog in 'crat areas. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Keepscases (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Abecedare. John Carter (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as this admin has demonstrated good sense and dedication to the project in (amongst other areas) UAA. The fact that previous RfBs have failed does not bother me in the slightest, as reasonable explanations have been given. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've known Nihonjoe throughout my time at WP, and find him always willing to offer advice and level-headed in some fairly contentious areas. His continued attention to editing shows he has kept a proper perspective of any editor's responsibility here-- to produce encyclopedic content, not to seek power. I am confident that he will use Bureaucratship only for the best interests of WP. Dekkappai (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly: I trust Nihonjoe completely. I supported his last two RfBs and was pleased to do so. I also agree with what Abecedare said above. Nihonjoe will be excellent. Acalamari 21:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No obvious concerns. Will make a good bureaucrat. AGK 23:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per improvement from previous noms Triplestop x3 23:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like his answers to the questions and he should be an asset to our bureaucrat team. AniMate 00:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just like last time, I think Nihonjoe is more than worthy for 'cratship. He's intelligent, articulate, and thinks everything out before acting. ceranthor 00:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nihonjoe has demonstrated long-term commitment to the project and, even better, long-term levelheadedness. His answer to No. 7 suggests that he may be a tad more conservative than I might find ideal, but he is consistent and fair. We can trust him. GreenGourd (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Joe work hard to get here, he work in areas for crats, and he has sound judgment and article work. — JoJo • Talk • 03:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Step hen 05:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see any problems. Tim Song (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Will definately help the project if promoted. Angryapathy (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nihonjoe is inherently trustworthy. Bastique ^demandez 17:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Per Balloonman, per Abecedare, and per the constant need for fresh bureaucrats. The new ones tend to be more active than those with long tenure. Nihonjoe's record as an editor and as an admin looks fine. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, ample long-term evidence of a dedicated and sensible administrator who understands the important things. No concerns here. ~ mazca ^talk 17:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no issues for me, seems like a wise and reasonable individual. Cocytus [»talk«] 19:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Support 100% trustworthy, on the level, and the complete opposite of a drama queen. Nihonjoe is a reliable representative of Wikipedia. Vodello (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bastique said it. —Crazytales (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Joe has long deserved the his bureaucratship. Extremepro (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wikipedia needs senior people with his unique experience and perspective --Tenmei (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like his input, seems level-headed. King Pickle (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support No blemishes that I have noticed. And nothing serious raised in the opposes. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as with previous runs. -- Samir 00:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The positive view I formed on seeing his edits has been confirmed by his answers here. Edward321 (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thoughtful and decisive. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. After a recent discussion with another former RfB candidate, I reconsidered my position on this particular bundle of tools; hence, my request to see examples of discussions where the candidate has determined consensus, as that's the main issue when closing RfAs. The other tasks require a small modicum of technical knowledge and a good dose of common sense. Nihonjoe meets all of my reconsidered criteria. Risker (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC) As an aside, I would strongly support lowering the support requirements for RfB, and RfA for that matter too.[reply]
Support, seen Nihonjoe around many times, and I've never seen an example of bad judgment, often very much the opposite. His courteous response to the second opposer here is far from an anomaly. I'm also very impressed with the careful, thoughtful reasoning shown in answering the questions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am happy with the responses to the questions, and the fact that the candidate has listened to what was said at their previous RfBs and reacted in a positive way in his actions. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The answers to the questions posed are thoughtful, thorough and comforting, particularly since 'crats often have to walk the diplomatic line when determining consensus. I have every confidence you will build upon your strengths as a good admin and that you make an excellent 'crat. Good luck. --Chasingsol ^(talk) 08:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom --NotedGrant Talk 10:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A trusted user, I did read thoroughly the answers to the questions and I am satisfied by them also. I am confident he will make a good 'crat. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good user, who I can trust. America69 (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not much I can add to the comments that have come before. Promotion will be an asset to the project, and it will be good to have a successful RfB for a change. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support without reservations, as a trusted user. Glad I didn't miss the RfB this time. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like last time. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Past experience with this editor as an admin leads me to believe that he will also make a good bureaucrat. — Kralizec! (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same as the last time(s). Keegan (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm happy with his answers to the questions, and think he would make an excellent crat. The thing that should not be 23:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Reviewed quite a number of edits. Haven't interacted personally, but read answers to questions, and was happy with the reasoning. --SPhilbrick T 03:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Should be a good crat per answers. Trustworthy. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I've found his judgment good. Also find the reasons given below to oppose very unconvincing. Not to mention he's been an expat in Asia, so he has to be pretty cool, no? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I don't recall ever having a bad interaction with him. He should do fine. Syn 15:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Some of the issues from the last nom remain, and given cratship is supposed to be no big deal, I gotta confess 4 attempts for the position makes me a tad uncomfortable. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How so? I see 4 attempts at the candidate trying to help out. iMatthew ^talk at 11:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note also that those attempts span over 2 1/2 years, so it's not like one right after the other - which would be a dealbreaker, I think. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might I ask what issues you see as being unaddressed? I was probably the most vocal voice last time, and he has satisfied me.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a lot of difficulty with this oppose. People who grow in knowledge and wisdom should be affirmed. Not giving up is a good thing. Might I also ask what issues you see as being unaddressed? - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of opposing just for multiple RfAs comes up a lot at RfA and seems to get under people's skin on both sides. Opposing without looking at what someone has done since the last RfA comes across to some as harsh or lazy, while saying that previous attempts don't matter at all comes across to some as gullible, that is, some think that the voters are getting played by candidates who don't show any real change, who just try different tactics until something finally works. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I've seen any voter get either of these negative reactions if they just said something specific about what the candidate had or hadn't done, or said "per" so-and-so, who said something specific. (tweaked). - Dank (push to talk) 20:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoughtful answer - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4 attempts over 2.5 years is no big deal. The first 2 of those were in 2007 which counts as ancient history. His last attempt was less than 6 months ago, which makes me wonder if there are power-seeking issues. However, given this person's remarkable contribution to the project and sister projects, I'm likely to add my support in the coming days even if he comes out and says "yeah, I want power, bwuhahaha." If I don't !vote, it's because I got sidetracked and didn't have time to to my usual vetting, not because I'm changing my mind - if I see something like bad judgment that throws me to neutral or against after careful review, I'll say so directly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do have a userbox on my page that states, "This user is evil, and frequently says muahaha." Make of that what you will... ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As per last time. (Here is the relevant problem.) I still don't trust him. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of us have been brainstorming about the appalling failure rate of RfBs. Just a thought: this isn't a test with right and wrong answers, it's a bunch of imperfect people trying to get their work done without driving each other crazy. Anyone who's been around long enough to try an RfB is going to have accidentally stepped on some toes ... even if it isn't obvious, sometimes an opposer is just saying "ouch", and sometimes the candidate can fix the problem if you give them a chance. Jumping in with the "right answer" can make the opposer more annoyed than they were in the first place and make the candidate's job harder. I think I might start asking the candidates in RfBs if they'd prefer that voters hold off for a few hours before responding to opposes. - Dank (push to talk) 13:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, seven months - quite a long time to be holding a grudge like this over a relatively minor issue. What has this got to do with Nihonjoe being a bureaucrat? GlassCobra 15:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: it doesn't. It's Axl holding a grudge. I'm sure the bureaucrat will treat it appropriately, but at this rate, I doubt it will count for anything. Majorly talk 17:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my further comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't agree with this oppose rationale. Nihonjoe offered to userify the article so you could work on it and move it to the project space when it was ready, but you're still upset because you will have to click one or two extra buttons? If this is the "worst" thing Nihonjoe has done all year, he is the best administrator on Wikipedia. Vodello (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vodello makes a good point. OTOH, when admins act "out of process" in some way, sometimes editors get the idea that they've been disrespected, intentionally pushed aside. Closing a DRV on your own deletion without waiting for input is "out of process", even though I'm sure Joe meant no offense, and he did preserve the text. Having a good ear for when people are feeling abused, whether you actually abused them or not, is a good skill for an admin to have. It's generally a very simple problem to solve ... just say something solicitous so that they know you weren't disrespecting them. - Dank (push to talk) 19:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, having ruffled a few feathers on a borderline disagreeable incident is hardly enough reason to not trust someone to uphold policy (unless there are other examples, of which I have seen none); further, admins and 'crats have different skillsets, and an RfB should not be judged on the same criteria as an RfA. GlassCobra 02:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you were offended by the speedy deletion of the article, but I believe it was speedily deleted correctly. When you raised your concern, I userfied it for you to work on until it was ready for prime time. You continued to push the point, however, bringing it up on ANI (where everyone indicated that it was speedily deleted correctly (one after having the "hangon" process explained)) and bringing it up at DRV. I closed the DRV (under WP:IAR) because I had userfied it for you so the discussion was moot at that point. Since that time, List of Exalted comics was recreated and now resides at Exalted (comics). Yes, closing the DRV was not following normal procedure, but I already explained to you why I did that (multiple times). No matter what I've done or what I've said to you, you refuse to accept any reasoning at all. At this point, there really isn't anything else I can do other than apologize. If you choose to continue nurturing a grudge because of this, there isn't anything I can do about that. Thank you for participating here, however. I appreciate your time. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nihonjoe, thanks for your comment. I am not offended by the speedy deletion. However I disagree with your implementation of speedy deletion. My current concern is that you still believe that you implemented the policy correctly. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I'm sorry but I can't support this request. The flippant attitude which Nihonjoe showed here toward self admitted pedophile editors makes me seriously question his judgement. His process wonkery in this matter also astounded me ("You aren't paying attention to what I'm writing: there is no policy which supports this block. Just because someone hasn't called you on it before (perhaps no one noticed it before) doesn't mean you can keep blocking people outside of policy."). His complete inability to move away from the precise words of policy over the incident had the potential to seriously damage the project and I therefore don't believe that he should be handed a position where discretion is required. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you think that's a "flippant attitude", but I still can find nothing in any policy anywhere here or on Meta which states that if someone does something on another site which has absolutely zero impact here that they can or should be blocked. Tyciol was blocked simply because of comments made on another site, comments which he has not expressed here. He has broken no policies here at all. As I stated there, I do not support pedophilia in any way, but I don't think we should be blocking someone for actions elsewhere unless it has a very clear and direct impact on the site. We can't be the world thought police, and we should not try to be by blocking people for opinions, ideas, or thoughts expressed on other sites when no direct correlation can be made. Unless someone has broken a policy here, they should't be blocked here. Tyciol hasn't advocated pedophilia here at all (and you have even stated as much). Thanks for participating here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may not support pedophilia (I've never said I believe you did) but the position have taken with respect to Tyciol is one that suggests you're okay with it here and you're okay with the ability for self admitted pedophiles (Frankly I don't care where they admitted it, the point is that they have) to edit here, along with children and having access to methods of private communication such as the interface email system. This is why I strongly question your judgement. The block may not have ticked every exact box on the blocking policy, but it was necessary to protect the project and its editors. The fact that you put significant weight on the fact that it wasn't specifically noted in policy makes me believe your ability to use discretion is not what it ought to be when we are considring you for the role of the bureaucrat. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is another petty oppose vote that only further strengthens Nihonjoe's credentials. Is this oppose vote suggesting that Nihonjoe should have ignored all rules and be prejudiced against the user in question? I, for one, am glad you linked to your "evidence". It shows me that Nihonjoe is not a bigot in the least, and that he would be a fine representative of Wikipedia. Vodello (talk) 06:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that a block for being a self admitted pedophile is" prejudiced" and by making the block I am a "bigot" then that is extremely sad indeed and I would suggest completely off the mark with what most rationale people would believe. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit I strongly disagreed with Joe's position in the above referenced matter and am still concerned with his response here, but I am reminded that crats have no special powers when it comes to blocks or bans (arbs and stewards via sanctions and account locks have the special powers), which is why I did not oppose here. MBisanz ^talk 08:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed they have no special powers, which is specifically why I've stated that this oppose is based on Nihonjoe showing particularly unsound judgement in a position where he is expected to show high levels of it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They do have status. If anything were to come of this, and it got a lot of attention, that'd make a difference. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

v t e RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters	XTools Edit summary usage
Analysis	Articles created Non-automated edits BLP edits AfD votes AfD closes
Cross-wiki	CentralAuth Global contributions User rights