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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope it turns around but I'm pretty sure many have ceased to see me as a person and the pile-on will continue – I mean how can they see me as a person if they think I should be OK with that kind of accusation from an RfA participant. I tried my best to be open and honest but got chastised for that as well but…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

		The Purple Barnstar
		"People are going to vote against me. I'm OK with that and I will learn what concerns people have – Opposes can only help me as an editor whether I pass RfA or not." --GRuban (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I don't think I've ever seen an RfA recover in that way. The graph is interesting [1]. Another couple of days and you might have gone back above 75%. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Hello!

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

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

Thank you!

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

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

All the best,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• It is a shame you didn't go through. I was hoping you'll pass. Damn it we need more people like you upstairs. We've never interacted before but I am impressed with your work and the way you carried yourself in that RfA - and voted accordingly. I hope you change your mind and stand again. My commiserations. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I second everything said above in this section. I hope you consider a future run. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with all of the above. Thank you for your contributions to the project. Donner60 (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I am sorry to see that you didn't make it. However, I am confident that your next run will succeed. Meanwhile, if you would like to have a bit of a test or feel with how admin tools are like, feel free to create an account at publictestwiki or thetestwiki and you can request admin tools there. Anyone can be an administrator at either of those sites. It also means that when you become an administrator on hopefully your next run, you will know where to locate the admin tools straightaway as you already tested with them. Again, I am sorry that this didn't succeed but don't get discouraged from editing. Thanks. Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Commiserations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry about this. I opposed of course, but I wish people hadn't gotten so nasty about it. Keep standing up for yourself. Hope all is well. ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 05:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry to see your RFA wasn't successful, I was really hoping things were gonna pick up and that you'd succeed but unfortunately not, I've wrote this bit 5 times and it still sounded ranty so I'll say this - Your next RFA is entirely up to you and if you did rerun then great but if not then great, Either way your contributions here are greatly appreciated and I hope to see you around :), –Davey2010^Talk 18:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Late to the party, but +1. Failed crat chats can be discouraging, but I've been happy to see you still around and still the same person you were before the RfA. I look forward to supporting a second bid. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

		The Purple Barnstar
		You have earned the Purple Barnstar today, after the way you were treated at your RfA and especially for the way you conducted yourself in spite of that.

Allow me to apologize on behalf of the project today, especially the 86 people who got it wrong, and the 7 who further compounded the error. Run again in 6 to 12 months. AFAIC, (along with many, many others) you've already earned those tools, so make sure you go back and collect them. In the meantime, just crank out a few stubs, allow that Arbcom to become old news, and the two biggest (and really only) reasons for opposing will be nullified. Other than that, just keep doing what you've been doing. A lot of people here firmly believe you are a great contributor and will make an equally great admin. Good luck to you. Cheers - wolf 05:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. --GRuban (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That thing was a normal RfA that became a train wreck which was under determined assault by a few drahmaz-lovers with grudges who were echoed by a few others who picked up on some (content! temperament!) memes. One picked a fight with you years ago (and picked fights with many before, during, and after this RfA), and claimed you were mean to them, and most of those complaining about content obviously didn't read what you have written. If the little gang that went after me like this in 2007 had been slightly larger they might have sunk mine, too. I value quality over quantity in content. Your work is good, and it would be better for Wikipedia to have you in the admin corps than not. – Athaenara ✉ 19:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per our resolution. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winkelvi: Thanks! Next round is on me! Jbh ^Talk 21:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, just to be clear, do you really think it is CIVIL to send an article to AfD because another editor references it in another AfD to explain a concept? This perplexes me. Newimpartial (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: If you wish to discuss the WP:ANI thread you are involved in I would be glad to do so at ANI. Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 02:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Newimpartial (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I have retracted, struck through, and left the ANI discussion here [2]. For future reference, though, what do you suggest would be an appropriate AGF response to this [3] reply to this [4]? I would appreciate any guidance you might give me on this matter, just as I am belatedly following this advice. Newimpartial (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: at this point that is, in my opinion, of little value. The plain fact is that you are continuing to attack other editors mere hours after saying that you understood it was a problem and would stop. Based on that I believe that you will continue to do so until you see actual consequences ie a block and a block log that will ensure swift and escalating responses should you do so again in the future. I believe a short block now would both serve to prevent further disruption in the future and, by virtue of impressing on you the consequences of your behavior, hopefully prevent the indefinite block which would surely follow if you ended up at ANI for personal attacks again.

In other words, by failing to live up to your word from yesterday I do not see how your word today would be any better. The only advice I have is to never comment on motivation, competence, or any quality of another editor. Never use snark, sarcasm or anything other than short declarative sentences about content or the applicability of policies. From what I have seen you appear to be incapable of recognizing the line so you should avoid any commentary on others. My firm belief is that if you continue to fail at AGF or continue to make personal attacks you will be facing long blocks or possibly an indef at ANI. I think that would be a loss so I do hope you are able to get things under control. Jbh ^Talk 14:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything I could do to convince you that the "glutes" comment will not be repeated, besides not repeating the "glutes" comment?

Also, you have by now seen and responded to my comments on several AfD filings since I filed for ANI; have any of my posts in that timeframe outside ANI given you any reason to think I will have any difficulty in those venues? Newimpartial (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. That ship sailed. I removed my support of a sanction based on your promise and you broke it in less than a day.

My concern at many of the AfDs I have observed is WP:BLUDGEON. That is a problem because it suppresses collection of opinions from other editors. Leave things you disagree with for a day or so. If it is a major point someone else will comment and that will strengthen consensus more than you replying to everything. In general I see your participation in the AfDs I have read as being more disruptive than helpful because of the bludgeoning.

My suggestion would be to limit yourself to a couple of Comment statements which address the reasoning/positions you disagree with in a concise manner and avoid threaded discussions except where people are replying to your Comment statements. Long, back and forth threads are a pain for the closer and very likely to result in the bulk of your commentary being ignored. Keep it concise and address only policy points e.g. why and how the policy applies or why and how you think another editor's interpretation is incorrect. Jbh ^Talk 15:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. That is really excellent advice. Thanks! Newimpartial (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Perseverance is not a long race; it is many short races one after the other. ~ Walter Elliot Remember, JB - truth eventually finds its way. Thanks for all you do!! Atsme📞📧 05:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: Thank you! Jbh ^Talk 11:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Jbhunley. I misclick revert button Hhkohh (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I did the same thing a couple of days ago to Tony when I tried to thank him and instead hit rollback. Jbh ^Talk 15:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jbhunley. Thanks for your note on the Jerome Lee Davis page. This page is not unambiguously promotional because Jerome Davis is one of the most high-profile and important African-American business leaders in the United States. In an increasingly diverse business environment, Davis' career as a trailblazer is extremely notable. His athletic career as perhaps the only college football player to play for Hall of Fame coaches Woody Hayes and Bobby Bowden also is notable enough in itself to merit inclusion.

I'm happy to take more time to edit the page if you have specific concerns about any of the sections. Please let me know.

Thanks, Mcabbage

Mcabbage (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Did you read what you just wrote?! Jbh ^Talk 19:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I read every word. Sorry, but I'm clearly missing your point. Also, in response to the question you asked about me being compensated to write this, I am not being paid for this article. I am not receiving compensation from Mr. Davis or anyone representing him. I hope this answers your questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcabbage (talk • contribs) 20:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not edit or otherwise contribute to any WikiMedia article or project on behalf of any employer, client, or affiliated person, organization, or other entity; nor do I receive or solicit any compensation for any edits or other contributions. Mcabbage (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that what you wrote above, justifying the tone of the article, was in itself overly promotional. A Wikipedia article should be neutral in tone – see the policy one Neutral point of view. In particular any text which could be considered promotional or puffery must be avoided. The article, as written, is simply unacceptable.

Also you may want to read this brief tutorial on editing talk pages, which will help you get up to speed on how to collaborate using talk pages.

(Please follow the blue links. These terms have a specific meaning on Wikipedia and the links provide more details.)

Jbh ^Talk 20:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the DGtal article, I've created it because it is relevant for digital geometry students. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M. B., Jr. (talk • contribs) 21:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jbhunley, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Cominar, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to uncheck the "newbie box" and add a reason: try AfD or PROD on this one. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]