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)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I hereby accept the nomination. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2020 (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: 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.
4. What additional skills and experience do you think you will bring to the team of bureaucrats that make you a net positive in addition to the current bureaucrats and the other two candidates presented this week?
A: Experience wise, the most important trait is probably that I come from a more recent wiki-generation. Depending on how you define "active" I did became active either in 2012 or 2015, while most current bureaucrats have joined long before that and often were already bureaucrats or admins by then. There are differences in perspective between people who were around in old times and those who joined up when Wikipedia had become more important and mature, for example in terms of handling concerns about bureaucratization (in the sense of Wikipedia procedures, not the bureaucrat user group) or the handling of new users when it becomes an issue in the RfX. Skills wise, I can carry out detailed summaries of the arguments presented, which can be helpful at determining the existence of consensus when the numbers don't say it all ... and most (not all, though) tough/contentious bureaucrat decisions are these where the numbers don't clearly indicate a consensus or its absence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
5. Do you think this question "Have you edited under previous account" asked in several RFA as it appears by some editors as it appears to than that the candidate fails WP:DUCK is appropriate in the context of this Wikipedia:Clean start#Requests for adminship says candidates are not obliged to publicly disclose previous accounts.Do you think Candidates should disclose whether they had a previous account in a RFA (without the naming the account).Particurly for those making there clean start after conflict rather than privacy reasons.
A: Regarding that question, I would consider it an appropriate question. Yes, it's not technically obligatory to answer it or to publicly disclose the answer (the page notes that a private disclosure to ArbCom is possible) but in the past we've had issues with questionable clean starts and coming clean about previous accounts is more honest and can prevent a lot of conflict that could ensue if a previous account was revealed after the RfX. Whether and how to answer it is of course up to the candidate. Regarding "do you think", in the name of honesty I would recommend a full disclosure especially in questionable cases; a clean start after a conflict is likely to be contentious when it gives the appearance of avoiding scrutiny. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
6. Do Crats have the right to use there discretion rather WP:IAR in particular in resysoppings editors without the 24 hour wait or any discussion.
A: I am a little unsure about what you asked here, but if you are asking about IAR in general I think it needs to be applied very sparingly in bureaucrat matters. People are not infallible and overturning or reviewing a bureaucrat action is much harder than, say, a page deletion. And the action can have large ramifications on e.g future deletions. The only case I can think of is when a bureaucrat is experimenting their admin rights by removing or readding them to their own bureaucrat account, although there probably are other scenarios. On the waiting period and discussion, I don't really see a situation where it would be necessary to skip them in order to improve the encyclopedia and it doesn't seem like these requirements so far have caused serious issues solely by existing, either. So I wouldn't do it except in unusual cases (IAR is to a large degree meant to cover unexpected situations, so I wouldn't categorically rule one out). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
7. What do you make of the overlap in membership between Arbitrators and Bureaucrats? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A: Well, there is only a limited amount of people who are willing to seek such responsibilities and have the skill and experience to be entrusted with them, so it's both to be expected and not necessarily a bad thing given that the shared experience can be useful in some situations. Now in my personal opinion arb and crat are two fairly distinct responsibilities (mainly that arbs work as a collective and on the basis of their interpretation of a situation, crats work mostly on their own but they are expected to scrupulously stick to community consensus rather than "arbitrating") and I've seen problems with e.g arbs who are bureaucrats being asked to recuse in arb case requests that dealt with the outcome of the bureaucrat action, or controversial arbcom-mandated desysops where having the bureaucrats act as a sanity check was useful. So I'd probably recommend some separation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
8. Please explain what other functions besides Crat Chats on RFA candidates you see bureaucrats having. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A: Aside from the obvious (assessing RfXes that either have a clear consensus or have a clear lack of consensus and implementing the conclusion), bureaucrats also have the responsibility of enacting desysops and resysops, apply and remove the bot and interface administrator user rights, assessing whether an application for Bot Approval Groups membership has consensus in favour of granting and clerking RfX pages. If you mean hypothetical future roles: Over the years there have been proposals to create community-based deadminship processes, and some proposals included giving bureaucrats additional roles. As for whether they should get them (or any other additional responsibility in some other context), I think I'd need to see a concrete proposal to comment on it; my impression is that bureaucrats have often been wary of having their role expanded to take on responsibilities it didn't have when they applied for RfB as their skill in such an expanded role was not scrutinized when they received crat responsibilities. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
9. Do you believe trendlines should be used as an effective way of measuring consensus in RfAs? If yes, why, if not, why not?
A: Sometimes. Even with many !voters, RfX pages are not so large and last not so long that trendlines cannot arise by mere coincidence (e.g if a few supporters find the RfA at the last day) so on their own they are not very indicative. Plus there is a concern flagged in the Money emoji crat chat that such trend lines may either be tactical voting, or that bureaucrats factoring them in might encourage tactical voting. Sometimes trends arise due to new revelations, e.g when someone discovers a past contentious edit by the candidate. In these cases one typically sees a clear change-point and often also vote switching. These trends can be an useful gauge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
10. As a crat, how would you have assessed Money emoji's RfA in the crat chat?
A: Recusal in both, since I am support #123 on that RfA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: What does "in both" mean here? --qedk (t桜c) 18:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was just bad wording - I would neither close the RfA nor partake in the crat chat except to document my recusal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up question
10.1 This one is due to a failure to clarify the question beforehand on my part (your answer is technically correct, ofcourse). I wanted to seek your assessment of Money emoji's RfA as an example of how you'd practically approach contentious RfAs, so the same question, but hypothetically considering you had not participated in the RfA.
A. Well, in that case I see that with 153support/66oppose we are in the middle of the range where bureaucrat discretion is usually applied, so to a bureaucrat discussion it would go. From an analysis of all the arguments presented, there are legitimate arguments both in favour of promotion and against it, and rebuttals too - for example, on whether copyright clerking requires admin tools, maturity and whether an outburst over a year ago are indicative of immaturity, and the ever-contentious content creation aspect and whether the content contributions have been oversold. I see a trend downwards in the support percentage over time, but there is not much vote switching or reconsideration going on (in fact, I am seeing lots of supporters reaffirming their prior stance) so I wouldn't attach that much importance to it. Going by strength of argument, a lot appears to be predicated on a retirement message that was posted over a year ago and there has never been a strong consensus that content creation is a requirement for adminship and these point tilt this towards "yes, there is consensus". Nevertheless I don't think I see a clear consensus here; yes there is lots of support but also lots of opposition, and while in other places a 2-1 ratio would be considered a clear consensus this is not how RfA currently operates. I agree incidentally that this is a very marginal RfA, and that neither a "consensus" nor a "no consensus" conclusion would be blatantly wrong. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
11. Can you give some examples where you have closed contentious requests for comments in a panel or by yourself? If you don't have or recall any such RfCs, other contentious discussions with formal closure are also acceptable.
12. How would you !vote in a crat chat about the following hypothetical RFA:
200 !voters total
130 support !votes
20 "per nom"
20 "no concerns", "no big deal", "yes please", "easy support", or similar
20 "strong support" with a detailed rationale
20 re-affirming support after reviewing opposes
20 who changed from oppose to support in response to answers to questions
20 "weak support" agreeing with one or more oppose rationales
6 "per others", evenly split amongst the above
4 just a signature
70 oppose !votes
20 citing lack of content creation
20 citing a 3RR block from one year ago
10 citing an interpretation of the candidate's username
10 switching from support to oppose in response to other opposes
8 "per others", evenly split amongst the above
2 votes from accounts with 11 edits (not blocked)
A: Sorry, just saw this one. That's at the lower side of the present-day discretionary range, so it would go to a bureaucrat chat most likely but the normal assumption would be that such a RfA is closed as "no consensus" unless the support case is singularly compelling or the oppose case singularly poor. Strength of argument is difficult to gauge from a summary, but judging by the number of weak supports, strong supports and vote changes in both directions it looks like there are strong arguments on both sides. I think I would be considering this a no consensus case; yes 130 supports are a lot but so are 70 opposes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
13.Stewards. It's a global Wikipedia position. They typically only intervene in emergencies such as abuse of power by a bureaucrat. Other than emergencies, when do you think stewards should intervene in place of a bureaucrat. For example, a complete absence of bureaucrat when they are needed. Can I Log In (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A: I can't really think of many instances. In general, established practice for Wikimedia stewards is that they do not apply their expanded access in a local project unless there is nobody on that local project who can do it or there is an emergency situation. From reading the steward discussions on Meta it seems like this principle is held to pretty stringently, and I think it's generally a good approach - there are many hundreds of projects in the Wikimedia family, all with their own particular idiosyncrasies and cultural conventions which would be easy to get wrong. So the only situation outside of an emergency I can see is when all bureaucrats have recused on a matter or are unavailable for some reason, but I don't think such a thing has ever happened on enwiki, certainly not in recent times. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support An awesome administrator. All the way, you've my support. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 09:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support- no concerns here. ReykYO! 09:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support – shows a solid understanding of policy as well as a lot of common sense. Sensible replies to questions, and I agree with the nominating statement. --bonadeacontributionstalk 10:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no issues, sensible, calm, level headed and a good understanding of policy. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 10:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per nom. Maxim(talk) 10:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, strong content creator. GregJackPBoomer! 11:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - In the recent AfD/DRV on Race and intelligence showed willingness to help out in a careful and professional manner in a very difficult situation with a highly contentious article; does not shy away from challenges. NightHeron (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good and helpful admin. Will make a good bureaucrat. PI Ellsworthed.put'r there 13:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good and level-headed admin, great judgment with consensus as far as I can tell, and I find the oppose rationale that there's too many bureaucrats to be patently ludicrous. The purpose of RfB (and RfA, for that matter) is to determine if the user can be trusted with the toolkit through their actions. A rationale such as "Too many 'crats" does not, in any way, consider whether the user is trustworthy to use the tools without issue, and essentially amounts to a boilerplate rationale, in my view. OhKayeSierra (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I see no reason not to, disregarding the rationale of "we have too many crats already", which I personally feel is irrelevant to JJE's ability to do the job. epicgenius (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Enthusiastic Support For the same reasons I outlined in SilkTork's RfB nomination, Jo-Jo Eumerus is, unquestionably, one of our most impartial and objective administrators who is incredibly adept at assessing consensus, as demonstrated in The Simpsons portal namespace MfD discussion and the second AfD for Jo-Ann Roberts. We want and need impartiality and objectivity in our bureaucrats and we need more bureaucrats, so there is simply no reason not to. In reference to a couple of the procedural opposes that we only need two more bureaucrats, we're on pace to lose between 2-5 bureaucrats due to inactivity, so when you net those future bureaucrat losses out, even if we gain SilkTork and WeSpielChequers, we haven't gained any new bureaucrats. Doug MehusT·C 14:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely worthy of being a bureaucrat. Quahog (talk • contribs) 14:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support recent RfA illustrated the need for more bureaucrats. Nothing that the opposers have said would make me thing this person is unqualified. --rogerd (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've reviewed Jo-Jo's articles many times and have been impressed by their common sense and level head. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Truly one of the best editors on the project. Understands how the whole thing works, has created much content, and knows where the bones are buried. Lightburst (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Solid editor and administrator. Calm, sensible, doesn't rush in and take sides, but will act in the best interests of the encyclopaedia - and that's the most that can be hoped of anyone. - SchroCat (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Nightheron. ミラP 16:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Competent and sensible. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The only reason to have bureaucrats at all, really, at this point is to close contentions RfA's. The contributions to the Race and Intelligence mess that JJE made show clearly that they are highly experienced and professional in assessing consensus in contentious discussions. They have clearly demonstrated competence and qualification for the right they are requesting. Whether that right needs to be given to anyone is not a question for an individual RfB. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 16:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great choice to become a bureaucrat. Abzeronow (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Level headed and honourable. Clearly has the best interests of the project in mind. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support will be a net-positive. Also, the idea that keeping the 'crat role super exclusive just because there isn't a perceived "need" for 'crats is silly. More level-headed voices in the 'crat role can only help the project. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 17:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support while I disagreed with the candidate's stance regarding the AfD mentioned in the first oppose, I will not oppose this candidate over a lone AfD. This is a trusted user who is not likely to abuse crat status. I am unsympathetic to the argument that a crat promotion constitutes the loss of an admin, for the crat workload is very light. If we can trust the candidate to make good decisions when closing RfA, we should promote them. If we end up with a lot of crats, who cares? Why is that a problem? This recent series of RfBs is long overdue and I hope there will be more. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Lepricavark: net positive. Puddleglum2.0 17:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Per above. A no-brainer IMO. Aloha27 talk 18:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support one of the opposers says "I don’t want someone with experience closing discussions". I think these are exactly the people we do want for the bureaucrat role. Helping to close RfAs in the discretionary range is now the main nontrivial bureaucrat task, and experience closing other contentious discussions is good preparation for that. Hut 8.5 19:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - seems like a reasonable request to me. NomadicNom (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 19:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support No concerns. Oddly, it is the long-serving bureaucrats who seem to go off the rails, not the newly-minted ones. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support experienced sysop who seems well suited to the role. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with the editors opposing below. I don't think an RfX nomination should be used as a proxy in the community disagreement on the vote/not vote issue. I think Jo-Jo's ability as a closer is the exact attribute we should be seeking in a crat, and I believe they will do a good job in this role. Specifically, I believe that Jo-Jo will follow and implement policies as written; for better or worse that means closing RfXs as discussions not as votes. For that reason I see no logic as to why Jo-Jos ability to close discussions in line with policy should disqualify them from being a bureaucrat. If RfX were to become a vote, I would maybe think differently, but it is not a vote despite the opinions of some editors in the oppose section. There are limited abilities for crats, and it may be worthwhile to hand most of these tasks off to stewards, but this is not the venue to evaluate that. Until we no longer need bureaucrats or the RfX policy changes, candidates who are qualified for the role should not be obstructed because of philosophical disagreements on the office they are seeking or policies they must apply. I support this request. — Wug·a·po·des 22:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – RfA is not now, nor has it ever been, just a vote. In fact, for the longest time, people used to refer to it as "!vote" to distinguish it from a regular straw poll. Bureaucrats are tasked with determining consensus: "does the community trust this user with the administrative toolset?" That involves weighing arguments, reviewing evidence, and coming to a decision. Jo-Jo Eumerus gets this. He has nearly four years of experience as an administrator, and to the best of my knowledge, he's done a great job. He is plenty competent enough to handle bureaucratship. Kurtis(talk) 00:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It seems quite a few of the crats are not very active, so new ones are always welcome and Jo-Jo Eumerus is well qualified. P-K3 (talk) 00:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, has a good amount of experience with the type of contentious closes that seem to be the main workload of a Bureaucrat, nothing in the opposes strikes me as disqualifying. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? Also noting that the opposes thus far are comedically unconvincing. -FASTILY 01:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Dmehus. 1.02 editor (T/C) 03:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the above commenters, especially Maxim, OhKayeSierra, Doug Mehus, Wug·a·po·des and Kurtis. As long as Wikipedia has bureaucrats and they have some functions, I cannot accept the proposition that we should not have any more because they aren't needed or aren't needed much. Also, given the importance of crat chats to determine consensus in close RfAs, I would rather see more than just a few crats add to the discussion and make a decision. Some current bureaucrats don't appear at all for these important discussions. I also can not accept that a candidate should be opposed based on a differences of opinion on philosophy, a reasonable difference of opinion on interpretation of a difficult policy, a difference on an AfD or an edit especially if it is ultimately correctable, and other minor problems with one or a few edits when the overall record and demeanor is good, probably excellent. I do not mind longer explanations in answers in these settings. I see that as an effort to cover all the details, which can be important and can lead to criticism if not opposition if an important or convincing detail is left out. The promotion of three administrators to bureaucrats at this time simply replaces the net loss of three from last year. With all of the praise and examples of Jo-Jo Eumerus's work noted above, and his excellent record, I believe he should be promoted to bureaucrat. Donner60 (talk) 05:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Appears to have the skills and temperament suitable for the function. · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 06:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I respect JJE's judgement. --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not terribly convinced we need more crats (and not a huge fan of crat chats), but that's not a good argument against a good candidate. —Kusma (t·c) 10:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Don't see any issues here and some of the opposes are weak (or worse). Black Kite (talk) 11:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've seen Jo-Jo Eumerus around quite a lot and I believe he will be a great bureaucrat! Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 12:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've interacted with Jo-Jo a few times and seen them to be a quality Wikipedian who I think is well suited for this role. I am deeply unconvinced by the comments in opposition below - as I see at the recent, controversial AfD many of them are referencing, Jo-Jo has been doing their best to address the issue in a fair and reasonable manner. I was impressed by the long proposed draft deletion statement one opposer linked for its effective summary of what was an highly contentious and fairly heated debate among a large group of Wikipedians. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Answers are nuanced, explanatory and analytical, all requirements for a crat. But to be blunt, their answer to Q12 really warrants more, the overall assessment might be OK, but the nuance isn't coming through. Excellent temperament and track record as an admin nonetheless and the opposition might want to read WJBscribe's comment at SilkTork's RfB. --qedk (t桜c) 22:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Support for a good admin with good judgment. To draw a line in the sand and say "no more 'crats" is, IMO, silly. Miniapolis 22:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, JJE is competent and levelheaded, and I believe will make an excellent crat. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 23:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have been impressed with JJE's experience as an admin. Reywas92Talk 06:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Wikipedia needs more Bureaucrats. I can't see the candidate doing much harm in that capacity. The 'crat mandate is extremely limited, it's not like admins who have hundreds of different jobs to do - and get right . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - 100% without reservation or hesitation. One of our best admins who has consistently shown good judgement. AtsmeTalk📧 08:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - sensible and on-the-ball. Also, some of those "oppose" are excellent reasons to support - David Gerard (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good to me. Not a "hat collection" thing - I'm appalled to learn that most of the bureaucrats have been in the post for over a decade, and that three haven't edited yet this year. Those are clear signs that fresh eyes are needed, as part of succession. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
I was being petty, so neutral or disregard or whatever. Doesn't seem like I should be doing a bunch of sentence striking, but you get the idea.Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)"'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)[reply]
@Dweller: I suspect that PF is referring to this recent hot potato at AFD/DRV. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Well, the notion that the subject of "race and intelligence" is not in itself encyclopedic, but we should only cover meta topics around it, such as the history of people discussing that concept, could be argued. And many editors did argue that in the AFD. If twenty editors had made that argument and two opposed, then delete would be a correct outcome. My issue with JJE's draft close was not so much the correctness or otherwise of the POVFORK idea, but that they saw a consensus for it that for me just didn't exist in the discussion, based on the numbers and the strength of arguments actually made. — Amakuru (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jo was (is?) going to enforce ... is not a true statement. JJ wasn’t/isn’t going to enforce anything. Just so everyone else knows, what Peregrine has a problem with is that JJ drafted a “delete” close in an AFD where Peregrine voted keep. Levivich (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per my own and unique interpretation of WP:NOTBURO. There is no obvious, compelling or persuasive need to create more people in a role that has extremely limited scope and has ample members to jump on an RfA within seconds of it expiring. Looks ever so slightly like a hat collecting opportunity, but hey, who am I to say. I've only been here 14 years. Could be a 3rd good Admin. lost, which is where resource is more valuable. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a silly question, but how would this cause an admin to be lost? Are you worried the new candidates will spend more time craternizing than admining? Surely if the role is so limited in scope it won't be much of a drain on their time. ReykYO! 12:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a lousy time to claim it's "a role that has extremely limited scope and has ample members to jump on an RfA within seconds of it expiring" - have you looked at the last crat-chat? Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of these cratchat-related RfBs suffer from the same fundamental flaw: they are reqesting a user right that will be used at most two times a year. * Pppery *it has begun... 12:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see absolutely no need for additional bureaucrats beyond the two that are going to pass right now. I’m also not entirely convinced that JJE’s experience with AfD translates well to RfA: there are actually policies to weigh at an AfD. There are none at an RfX, and to be blunt, crats shouldn’t really be exercising much discretion beyond determining who is a troll that can be ignored as compared to a good faith user who worded something in a poor way. RfA is a vote, plain and simple. I don’t want someone with experience closing discussions. I want someone who I am confident will generally follow the numbers and not make up arguments as to why vote X is stronger than vote Y.I don’t think JJE will do that in part of because of his answers to the questions, which discusses an analysis of the conversation that reads like an AfD or RfC closure. That’s not really something we want. The community has consistently insisted that RfX are a discussion not a vote, but really, they’re more like the Iowa caucuses: a vote where you try to convince others to agree with you. Crats should generally be less focused on analyzing arguments for policy and more focused on what the will of the community was by setting the guidelines it has set. JJE is a good admin, but I don’t think their experience lends them to being a good crat. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm not sure I've seen longer non answers to questions here before. Calidum 14:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would like to see more time as a sysop as well as more use of sysop tools. Sorry. BobherryTalkEdits 15:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm undecided on this RfB at this moment but how much time as a sysop do you think someone should have? 3.5 years seems like more than enough time to me and I was a little taken aback by this oppose. Primefac had less than two years experience as a sysop when he became the last successful crat and did garner 3 opposes though there seemed to be some sense that 3 years might be long enough which this candidate satisfies. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing as Barkeep49. Jo-Jo's use of the tools can be measured through looking through the logs (namely the deletion, merge, protection, and block logs), but it's also worth noting Jo-Jo's closing of discussions, which often result in "no consensus" and even "keep," can't be easily quantified through the logs. So, I'm not sure how one can say Jo-Jo has no use for the added user right. Doug MehusT·C 16:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
bit of trvia:one doesnt need to be an admin for becoming a crat. In other words, an editor who hasnt even spent any time as a sys-op at all - can run for RfB. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nor does the MediaWiki software require it, so it is technically possible for a user to be a bureaucrat without also being an admin. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per TonyBallioni. Nihlus 22:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per TonyBallioni, and Peregrine Fisher, and Calidum (and both, as of this writing, neutral comments below). There's way too much of a wading-in-with-personal-interpretation angle here. While that is sometimes of value at RfC and XfD (when one really does have policy firmly on the side of one's interpretation), it is not in 'Cratchat. In the case brought up here, it was executed poorly even at AfD and DRV (and it looks like we're in for another round of it). When there's a supervoting concern already in the air, I think Bureaucratship is off the table. I'm actually quite disturbed by Jo Jo Eumerus having drafted a delete close for something that was super-mega-obviously a no consensus at worst (and arguably "a cut-and-dry keep" as PF put it), but again wanting to be on the admin panel that closes the re-discussion of that same article's fate; that's just asking for a second chance to impose one's already-decided delete course. It's especially weird to me when the actually obvious result we should get to is that article and the one it is supposedly a PoV-fork of – the other way around really – being merged and at the shorter title. This is not rocket science, but JJE isn't getting it right in any way.
See, e.g., the tortured reasoning in the fourth paragraph of this Eumerus text-wall over here. (It's another "long non-answer", as Calidum put it. I have a reputation for wordiness, but day-um. Rambling circumlocution isn't a trait we value in 'Crats.) In that material, JJE should have started and just ended with "On balance, it looks like we have a consensus that the topic is notable and that being contentious isn't a reason for deletion". Aside from being buried in a whole page of dithering and hand-waving, it goes off the rails even before the rest of that sentence is complete, wandering into what should be covered where and whether there should be a central article on the topic. The AfD and DRV had nothing to do with which bits need to be in what article, and the core question was whether there are two "central" articles in competition with each other, not whether there should be one at all. So, I try to picture this kind of faulty reasoning, improper understanding of the issues raised, and willingness to wikilawyer for page after page, being be brought to bear in 'Cratchat, and I just have to say "nope". I generally trust JJE as an admin (perhaps less so now when it comes to non-SNOW deletion rationales and their intersection with NPoV policy, though the CSD track record looks better), but the 'Crat role is a very different set of responsibilities and requires a rather dispassionate approach. We don't need 'Crats often, but we need them a certain way when we need them. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 03:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What a shame, three at once, how cool it would have been to support all three. Oh well; per Calidum and SMcCandlish. Happy days, LindsayHello 11:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per SMcCandlish. That draft delete was baffling. That’s about as clear of a “no consensus” as there’s ever been. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - JJE is a dedicated Wikipedian doing a great job as an admin, but I feel like a crat should be someone who can wade into contentious areas without generating controversy. As much as I admire their work, I don't feel like JJE has quite the deft touch that I expect of a crat. I think highly of them as a Wikipedian and an admin, but I just can't support here. Sorry. Guettarda (talk) 15:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't really like the idea of opposing someone offering to take on a useful administrative function for the community, but my view of the candidate is somewhat negative. I have come across them at DYK where the accuracy of some of their hooks, or their new or expanded articles, has been questioned (I don't intend to dig out the diffs). I found an unwillingness to see things from other points of view or to compromise, and I do not think they are really of a suitable calibre to become a beaurecrat. TonyBallioni makes a better, policy-based argument! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
I have a very high opinion of this editor based on my interaction with them, but I was not impressed by how they handled the Race and intelligence close. It didn't seem that there was any consensus in that discussion. Bureaucrats must be very careful to avoid even the appearance of WP:SUPERVOTE (I am not saying that is what happened in the Race and intelligence close, but some editors perceived it that way). buidhe 15:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like Jo-Jo and think he's a fine admin, much more so than myself. However, I loathe how, more and more, RFA has to be treated like a "Bureaucrat's suggestion box", where we have to guess at what kind of previously-perfectly-valid rationale to write that won't be arbitrarily dismissed if an RFA ends up within a couple percentage points of the nominal discretionary range. AFD closes aren't a good analogy here. DRV closes, however, are: they're mostly discussions among very experienced users, they have a (very few) hard-and-fast rules about closing that really upset people when they're not followed, and a poor close is not, in general, reversible. Taken in that light, a couple of Jo-Jo's DRV closes (Taylor James is the most recent) are too supervotey for my taste. —Cryptic 16:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning support; I am not as familiar with Jo-Jo as I am the other two RfB candidates, but I'm very concerned that much (not all) of the oppose section is copy-and-pasted boilerplate that has nothing to do with this candidate specifically. And I'm especially disturbed that some are attempting to overturn the community's long-standing and repeatedly confirmed sentiment that RfAs are a discussion (and not merely a vote) by attempting to tank individual RfBs. That's not fair to the candidate, and it's not an appropriate use of the RfB process. 28bytes (talk) 15:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, your vote was less contextual than most of the opposition, to be specific, your concern had nothing to do with the candidate and your neutral vote has no weight (as you stated about the opposes) wrt consensus around the candidate. Just my 0.02$. --qedk (t桜c) 17:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But it’s also not just a discussion. Probably the most accurate description would be a public vote with a concurrent discussion. The two other RfB candidates clearly understand this and both to one degree or another pay deference to percentage as an indicator of consensus, even within the discretionary zone. This has been a trend in recent crat chats as well, and is a good thing. JJE’s answers suggest they’d approach this more like an AfD, where percentages matter less and arguments more. While the community has been insistent on calling this a discussion, it has also been insistent on maintaining percentages. Focusing too much on the discussion aspect without recognizing in the majority of cases, the numbers matter more, loses sight of that community consensus. Opposing someone because you don’t think they’ll pay enough attention to the numeric guidelines established by the community is fair, just as supporting them because they are good at analyzing discussions is fair: the community’s way of handling consensus at RfA is in tension, and deciding how those discussions are handled is up to bureaucrats. Voting based on how you think the tension should be resolved is appropriate, imo. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
Sorry if I'm missing something, but what is with all the RfBs recently? Foxnpichu (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent RFA went to a crat chat. The outcome was relatively close for about the first 90% of the time, and then a few late 'crats added their opinions and a decision was made. Multiple people on the crat chat talk page said we needed more crats to avoid a 5-day-long 'crat chat in the future. Primefac (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck to the candidates, of course, but only two (including that which recently sparked these noms) have gone over the 100-hour stretch since 2007—indeed, to put it another way, this was the first to go over 100 hours since 2007. The mean duration of a CratChat is ~46 hours. Less than two days, which is probably comforting for those that see a need for the group's augmentation. ——SN54129 14:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Thanks for the information. Foxnpichu (talk) 00:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]