Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Jbhunley/Bureaucrat chat

Opposition based on personal animus

I wish to bring to the crats' attention a point Uanfala raised during the RFA. JBHunley participated in a request for arbitration enforcement in May 2018 which resulted in ten t-bans being imposed. He also participated in the appeal of said decision at ARCA. No less than four of the t-banned editors (of the eight currently able to edit) have !votes "oppose" at JBHunley's RFA (Oppose Nos. 9, 30, 59, and 66) (as well as one other who opposed the t-bans at ARCA: Oppose No. 80). Between them, these four editors had only 7 RFA !votes before this: in two cases, the editors were making their first contributions to RFA.

Furthermore, I have no issues with an editor bringing up a previous interaction with the candidate, and explaining why it makes them unsuitable for adminship; but such was not the strategy here. Instead, each of the four editors have merely repeated comments made before them; the only !vote to cite a personal interaction focused on this ANI thread, in which JBH's comments were completely on point. One other editor (Oppose No. 3), also an RFA first timer, is also basing their opposition of said ANI thread. In sum, I would recommend that these !votes be given significantly less weight, as they seem to be taking forward a personal disagreement rather than objectively assessing JBH's suitability for adminship. Vanamonde (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)