Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Jo-Jo Eumerus

Jo-Jo Eumerus

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (3/1/0); Scheduled to end 09:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – I am delighted to present Jo-Jo Eumerus for consideration as a bureaucrat. He has been editing actively and consistently since mid-2015, an admin since mid-2016, and has amassed over 70,000 edits.

Jo-Jo Eumerus is a thoughtful and level-headed admin. His content creation is impressive, and includes several FAs and GAs, primarily in the fields of geology and physical geography. On the administrative side of the project, Jo-Jo Eumerus has distinguished himself in closing deletion discussions, where he can always be relied on to deliver a careful and dispassionate closure to contentious and complex discussions. Jo-Jo Eumerus is a voice of reason at meta-discussions, particularly to do with RfA and administrators.

The recent crat chat does show that new blood in the bureaucrat corps could be a good thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus would very much be "new blood" relative to the other bureaucrats. While an established and very active administrator, he hasn't been around for over a decade or served in other advanced administrative roles. His input to bureaucrat matters would very much offer a needed new perspective. Jo-Jo Eumerus would be an excellent addition to the bureaucrat corps, and I hope you will agree with sentiment. Maxim_(talk) 21:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I hereby accept the nomination. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

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: I've been following discussions of how the RfX process operates, including all past and recent bureaucrat discussions. At RfA there is a general principle - last put in that form in a RfC four years ago - that normally a RfA with over 75% support is successful, one with less than 65% is considered unsuccessful (each percentage does not count neutral !voters) and in between there is a so-called "discretionary range". It is not simply a matter of a numerical percentage - especially in "discretionary" cases the arguments laid out by the !voters are of utmost importance. Common aspects that !voters consider are the experience (e.g edit count, the length of one's editing career, work done in areas where one plans to use administrator tools), one's understanding of policies and guidelines (e.g the various deletion-associated policies and notability guidelines, when the candidate plans to work in these areas), one's interaction with others (e.g how one approaches conflicts and disagreements with other editors), what one plans to do with administrator tools and often also content work (standards vary on this one, for example some are satisfied with the creation of a few decent articles, while others want to see some audited content such as a featured article or a good article, and some give it little attention). On the basis of such considerations and others !voters stipulate whether they consider someone's promotion to adminship as beneficial for the project (or not), and it is the task of the bureaucrats to determine from such arguments, the rationales underpinning them and the strength of support (or opposition) whether there is a consensus or not to promote.

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

A: That depends on the details of what "contentious" means, but there are in general two routes. The first and nowadays more usual route is to open up a bureaucrat discussion (or "crat chat") and invite the input of the other bureaucrats as to whether the nomination has a consensus for promotion. Typically the bureaucrat opening the discussion summarizes the state of the nomination, the arguments contained therein and whether they consider the nomination to have a consensus. In such discussions, the other (unrecused; it's expected that bureaucrats who participated in the nomination as !voters recuse both from closing it and from the corresponding bureaucrat chat) bureaucrats will then provide their own analysis and arguments as to whether the nomination should be considered successful or not. There is no written-down procedure on how to close a crat chat but it's been occurring via a headcount of all these who see a consensus/don't see a consensus The second procedure would be to make an assessment of whether the contentious nomination has a consensus (or not) and implement it (by promoting or not promoting) with a summary that describes the state of the nomination (the arguments laid out) and the thought process that led the bureaucrat to come to their conclusion regarding (the absence of) consensus. Really, this summary and thought process can and is usually done also during a bureaucrat chat. Even in dissent, Wikipedians are generally willing to accept decisions that go against their preference providing that their stance was given due consideration, the various viewpoints were fairly considered and the process leading to the decision was understandable to others ("transparent").

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: In my admin career I've closed a number of mostly deletion discussions where the outcome was not unambiguous, and I had the perception that I can come to a fair and acceptable assessment of the consensus in a discussion (or about its absence in a "no consensus" case) by impartially and carefully analyzing and summarizing all the offered arguments and applicable policies/guidelines/customs with a conclusion. I've received a fair amount of positive feedback on such analyses/summaries and on my Wikipedia work in general. Sometimes I get asked why I came to a given conclusion, a clarification of how I came to the conclusion, or someone requests a reconsideration of something I did (I am not just talking about administrator actions; I treat similar requests about non-admin actions such as regular editing the same); in these cases I either explain why I took the given action, or if I feel that it was inappropriate I reverse it. Sometimes I go back and evaluate my past decisions on my own account, to see how they worked out and whether they give advice for future actions. In my opinion, properly handling disagreements - including changing one's own stance when it's warranted to do so - is a key skill on any kind of collaborative project such as Wikipedia, as you are working with many other people who will not always agree with you, and there are many ways collaboration can end badly from poor handling of disagreement. Listening to others is essential especially (but not exclusively!) when you are an admin or bureaucrat working on the basis of consensus rather than one's own preference. Now when editing I am generally working on my own but I have also worked in collaborations with other editors, mainly in the ambit of featured content work.

---

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. Support An awesome administrator. All the way, you've my support. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 09:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Support- no concerns here. Reyk _YO! 09:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
3. Support They’ll do fine. I recall giving one of their FACs a damn good kicking and they responded in a very Wikipedian manner. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. "'X' is a POVFORK of 'History of X' So Delete" is something Jo agreed with. Seems so clear to me that I must Oppose. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

   Hi Peregrine Fisher. Could you help others understand your !vote by explaining it, please? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

   @Dweller: I suspect that PF is referring to this recent hot potato at AFD/DRV. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

1. Yep. Jo was (is?) going to enforce an AfD close where the closer said "X" was a POVFORK of "The History of X". The only reason to make that decision would be to ignore NOTCENSORED. I always thought NOTCENSORED was bedrock, so I vote that way. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)