Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Jbhunley

Absolute OPPOSE

I had totally forgotten Hunley's existence. He has accused me of not only opposing him because of his past acts, but even tries to connect me with McCarthyism! (on an unmentionable site) Those who follow RfAs know that I generally examine AfD stats. In fact I am noted for basing votes on RfA figures. But now Hunley has given me an outside reason - a person who holds grudges and attacks those who had grudges years ago as being McCarthyists is unfit to be an Admin by a mile.

You may dislike my stress on AfDs - but you can damn well note my RfA votes generally are on that topic. Collect (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you were the bad actor in that whole affair. Remember, you lied about other editors on Jimbo's talk page and were eventually topic banned and restricted to 1RR? Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others, in case anyone wants to make note of it.- MrX 🖋 23:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna see how much opportunity I had to rebut some of the "charges"? Sorry MrX - your position here simply adds weight to the fact that anyone who carries grudges as well as Hunley and you should not be given a mop. I did not "lie about other editors on Jimbo's Talk page" for example. and your "grudginess" is ill-suited to civil discourse. Stick to the issue about AfDs. Trying to paint me as Satan is not impressing me one iota. Is there a real reason you suddenly appeared here? I had not mentioned you at all - but you show up. Note this is in response to personal attacks made on me, and is not in any way anything more than that. Collect (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did lie, at 13:21, 16 March 2015 UTC. I don't want the mop. And let's not pretend that you oppose Jbhunley for any other reason than grudge against him for this and the drama surrounding your feud with Ubikwit.- MrX 🖋 23:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of these, many were from the Jewish[1] intellectual milieu of New York City.[2][3] and [27] on Dual loyalty: In the run up to the invasion of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, charges of dual loyalty were levelled against the neoconservatives from various sectors. The debate was heated, with charges of Antisemitism and counter charges being leveled. The controversy continues into the present due to concerns over neoconservatives disposition toward Iran. sure looks iffy, by the way. You missed the "dual loyalty" issue? Collect (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

??????- MrX 🖋 23:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(oh god) X, leave it go man... Lourdes 15:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request from candidate re Oppose votes commentary

I appreciate very much that people want to point out flaws in some Oppose votes but I have seen here and at some other recent RfAs that Oppose voters often feel put-upon or even harassed for their votes. I know that is no one's intent but it does seem to sometimes be the result. I have no desire to silence or curtail anyone from either side but, if when anyone thinks they should reply to an Oppose and my preference would make the difference between challenging the Oppose or not please choose not.

Thank you for your consideration of this request. Jbh Talk 00:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Collect's Oppose

  1. Oppose Lack of content creation coupled with odd deletionist status at AfD are sufficient. Out of last 500 AfDs, he sought deletion of 376 out of 413 (rest not identified or miscellaneous) or over 90%. All in all, a justified Oppose. Collect (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just curious, but how many of those 376 pages went on to be deleted? I ask because if the majority of them were, then those "delete" votes were likely justified, meaning your vote here really isn't, unless you have other reasons... (substantial "content creation" isn't a prerequisite for adminship)- wolf 20:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Number of AfD's where vote matched result: 363 (85.8%), Collect. Based on that, you may wish to revise your opinion or find another reason to oppose - if you must. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The two stats are different - I suggest you note the wording for each. Of 413 !votes, 376 were for Delete or Speedy Delete. My reasons stands. "Accuracy of !votes" is an entirely different statistic, I was concerned with how likely he is to !vote "Delete" as a rule. Do you see the difference? By the way, berating "oppose" votes is something I have seen all too often in the past, and you might wish to read those discussions before berating others here. Collect (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Somebody's got to take out the trash. It's a good thing we have people who are willing to help with this unpleasant task, and who do it pretty accurately by all accounts.- MrX 🖋
    ??????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs) 23:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Berating? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Lepricavark (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if you feel "berated", Collect, (is "badgered" now out of vogue?), that is not my intent. I just want to understand your reasoning. If a huge majority of the articles the nominee votes "delete" for are subsequently deleted, doesn't that just demonstrate consistency with good judgement? Would you rather they vote to keep loads and loads of crappy articles that just end up being deleted anyway? Somehow I think that would then be a reason to 'oppose'. You're trying to say the "stats are different", but I don't see how. And overall, (stats aside) do you really feel this nominee will make a poor admin? - wolf 01:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Berate" means to "scold or criticize angrily." (from Bing) And the fact is that a person who says "Delete" over 90% of the time is "well above average" in that regard. What I fear is that this person now makes a point of attacking me when my vote was done without my remembering him at all. Is an admin who holds grudges against folks who bear him no ill-will what we need? Collect (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If you actually know what the word means, then why are you misusing it? Nobody was berating Accesscrawl above. Neither of the first two responders to your !vote were berating you. It appears that you are being overly-defensive of the opposers here because you personally have an axe to grind with the candidate. This makes it difficult to believe your assertion (presented without evidence) that the candidate is attacking you. Lepricavark (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? I used the word "berate" precisely and accurately - and now you seek to berate me for using the word "berate" correctly? Are we on Candid Camera here? And I did not even recall the person - therefore saying I checked his AfD votes when I have done the same thing on every RfA is absurd. Collect (talk) 11:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you are not using the word accurately. I am not berating you; I am trying to reason with you. You seem to believe that anyone who questions your !vote is automatically berating you. Then again, you might be operating under the mistaken belief that everyone else here is as angry as you are. Lepricavark (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize (again), but Collect, I'm somewhat lost here, based on your comments. I (hopefully) take it that you don't feel I'm berating you. However, you really didn't answer my last question(s) to you. And now, you feel that this candidate, should they become an admin, will abuse the tools in some sort of vendetta against you? Is there any evidence of them carrying out grudges on editors they've had conflict with? And, how does a high percentage of "delete" !votes factor into this revelation? Any clarification on any of this, as well as my preview post above would be appreciated. Thank you. - wolf 13:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my oppose. I did not even recall the person I do not know who he is, so there is no damn way I could "out" him in any way whatsoever. The person holding the grudge is he, not I. And if you look at the RfAs in which I indicate support or opposition you will notice that I specifically refer to AfD positions pretty much every time. The way to see why I hold the opinions I hold is to look at them in the past not to berate me now. I find 91% "delete" !Votes to be a quite high percentage. Clear? Collect (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I opposed also, but I don't see the questions above your use of the word "berate" as meeting the definition you gave, "scold or criticize angrily." I think your attribution of anger to something that looks like a normal discussion is what set this thread off the rails. Please assume good faith and take the questions at face value. Jonathunder (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I'm not really sure Collect is even reading my comments/questions, as his responses don't seem to even remotely address anything I've posted. But thanks to everyone else for awesome derail and having the whole thread dumped on the talk page. Yay team. - wolf 23:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediocracy?

This discussion has veered considerably from its original question, and away from the scope of the relevant RfA, too. WP:JUSTDROPIT --HunterM267 talk 21:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can someone summarise what happened on the Wikipediocracy thread about this RfA - I'm not a member there so I can't see the comments? Deryck C. 11:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can read here. Rzvas (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Come one, there's got to be a better summary than that for those of us still waiting for their WO accounts to be approved. Was there any actual canvassing by Jbhunley, or just the "There is an RfA happening" post by Dysklyver? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That link is disgusting and whoever wrote it should be ashamed of themselves. I’ve always found those off-wiki sites that discuss Wikipedia and its editors to be incredibly boorish and this did not disappoint in that regard.—White Shadows Let’s Talk 13:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think much of the article either. You can see my name in the comments section criticizing one of its flaws. ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 14:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I've just gotten my account there. I suppose they have a long backlog. No, he did not canvass. Dysklyver started the thread, and Jbhunley got involved after it had already been active for several hours. I think the implication is supposed to be that Dysklyver is some sort of sockpuppet, which does not make sense. ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 14:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is a mischaracterization. Jbh responded only after Collect commented in the thread and made a reference to anti-Semitism relating to past disputes. Jbh clarified this in answer to Q17. Alex Shih (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If Collect is making bogus accusations of antisemitism, shouldn't he be facing sanctions of some kind (especially since he seems to have repeated the allegations on Wikipedia)? Lepricavark (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My posts and edits are being grossly misstated. I stated, and believe, that edits making a point that people are Jewish and have "dual loyalty" to Israel and the US may well be viewed as anti-Semitic.
At no point and in no way did I ever call JBHunley an "anti-Semite" ever.
Is that clear enough, now? And I had totally forgotten his/her existence until he/she brought it up. My "oppose" was based on the position that strong deletionists are possibly a problem at times. Please look up my oppose votes at RfAs in the past. Thank you. [1], inter alia Collect (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some reason why you feel the need to keep reiterating that you had forgotten the candidate's existence until he brought it up? You've already said that several times, and it has nothing to do with my comment at all. Also, I see nothing antisemitic about the point in question. Lepricavark (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I raised the point only because those who call me "Trash" seem to think I came here because of an animus which I did not and do not have. The iterated claim that I called any editor "an anti-Semite" is quite objectionable to me. My Oppose vote was based on a criterion I have used in a number of cases, and this discussion should be about the candidate and not about me at all. And I find it worrisome that saying Jews have "dual loyalties" is acceptable, but that you may well think that it is acceptable. Collect (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Meh… I doubt it would be worth the drama unless it escalates.
I have given permission for anyone who wants to copy an entire post of mine from WO over here to do so, so long as they provide an accurate summary of what it was in response to and I have copied a couple over (See Oppose #11, Neutral #5 and the information requested in Neutral #10 [here]) It would be much easier of the other party gave the same permission for their entire posts to be quoted here. Then everything can be examined as a whole and in context.
Since people seem to consider that what is not denied is true I will say I am not a misogynist or any other hateful -ist. If anyone would like something more detailed feel free to ask on-wiki. Jbh Talk 16:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I am going to be judged by the community for behavior off-site then I want to be judged for the entirety of my statements with them in context. If Collect wants to take me to a drama board for quoting his off-site remarks I am fine with it. If the community does not want me as an administrator because I will vehemently defend myself against someone who starts a thread off-site with a back hand accusation of antisemitism that others clearly responded to as a clear accusation of antisemitism and then turns around to use it as a club at RfA then I am fine with that as well. I am not that person and I never will be.
I do my best to improve Wikipedia and I acknowledge the times and ways I have failed to do that. I acknowledge the community's reservations about how I dealt with the FPaS ArbCom case and I will work to improve on those failings in the future, whether this RfA passes or not.
This is a transcript of Collect's and my interactions in the Wikipediocracy thread plus comments by two un-named third parties that show, regardless of Collect's protestations to the contrary, his post was seen as a direct accusation of antisemitism. Jbh Talk 17:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Totally unable to set aside the grudge even when I showed clearly that I made no claim at all that you are anti-Semitic? My posts were based on the edit that linked Jews and DUAL LOYALTY TO ISRAEL together which is generally considered to be an iffy sort of claim. [2] [3] [4] (I do not appear to be alone in seeing the danger of specifying a connection between Jews and "dual Loyalty) And you think this shows the temperament of an Administrator? You will need perpetually to use four-letter words against anyone whom you were ever annoyed at? Really? As I noted, my "oppose" was without even recalling anything ta all about you but you insist I did what I did not do? Sorry. Collect (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is starting to get extremely ugly. I think it would be best for both of you to disengage. Collect, you already made your opposition to this RfA clear. Now it seems you’re simply trying to derail it by picking fights.—White Shadows Let’s Talk 17:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And when an utter contemptible lie is said about me - I should act as though it were true? That is similar to my "case" where I was told I could not offer any more evidence in my defense because I needed time to answer the mass of expletive claims. I was given all of two days when I was unable to even manage to sort through all the junk accusations, and even then I was told I could not remotely have space to answer them all. And one person would be "tickled pink" if my cousin died? [5] I note that I did not point out that apparently JBH supported using a "cropped" booking photo in a BLP, did I? [6] I could find more now that he has "opened the door" I suppose? Collect (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a misleading interpretation of what that IP wrote. You seem to have difficulty accurately representing the comments of those who disagree with you. It makes it difficult to take anything you say at face value. Lepricavark (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
????? "Cousin with esophageal cancer just had 1/3 of esophagus and 1/2 of stomach removed, and significant enlargement of lymph nodes. I am sure "IP2600" is thrilled. Collect (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)" drew the response "Tickled pink. It's interesting how your family members seem to come down with horrible diseases every time you get in trouble here. Cheers,". And you think the "tickled pink" did not refer to a cousin losing 1/3 of her esophagus and 1/2 of her stomach to cancer as a "nice thing" of some sort? To me it looked like the person was in favor of her death, but maybe losing that much to cancer with a 5 year survival rate near zero is a good thing? Collect (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, such "misleading interpretations" are part of a pattern. For example claiming he "was given all of two days" is demonstrably false. The evidence phase ran from March 23, 2015 to April 7, 2015. Here's how he chose to spend that time. That's not including the days between when the RFAR was initiated and the evidence phase started, during which he spent his time canvassing. What he's also not telling you is that he had no intention of participating in the first place[7].- MrX 🖋 21:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The behavior you are displaying here is more telling than someone randomly associating you with antisemitism. You're going to be called much worse if you ever become an admin, so acting like this when the entire community is watching is not promising at all. I suggest someone close this section before it gets worse, and I recommend that you step away for the rest of this RfA outside of your standard additional questions being asked. Nihlus 18:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jbh should drop it, and I understand the backlash among some voters over his continuing to respond, but I don't think it's been stated clearly enough that while Jbh may not be exhibiting admin-like qualities here, it's really hard to see him as the bad actor. Collect posted a very non-neutral, critical message to Wikipediocracy about the RfA/candidate, while the RfA is still ongoing. The repeated insistence that the vote came without even recalling anything ta all about you is bizarre. I certainly hope I don't get to the point where someone opening a section about me on ANI with a giant wall of text is apparently commonplace enough to be unmemorable. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um -- I had to deal with over 100,000 users and over four million messages over a period of decades, and over 50,000 images.
Trust me - you do not "remember" everyone at all. I did not post to WO until after JBH attacked me here, if you wish to check the times. By the way, I do not even remember every section leader I had either. Some things are just not important enough to spend your life on. Collect (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Wikipediocracy is a notorious Wkipedia hate site. In my humble opinion whether in good faith or bad, editors who claim to do good service on Wikipdia have no business even posting there - as I said, just my opinion; what we do here is build is an encyclopedia, not script a cheap soap. The best thing to do is ignore and deny that site's existence and it should not be evoked one way or the other in an RfA.
Whatever else has happened on this RfA, one of the most unpleasant I have ever come across, with all its pile-ons, I hope that when (if) it goes to 'crat chat later today, our trusted Bureaucrats will be especially diligent in their summary and conclusion and take as long as they need. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Talking of unpleasant RfAs with pile-ons, what about this one[8] [9] in which you were a significant participant? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Significant Xxanthippe,?? Look that word up in a dictionary. With all due respect, with the huge furorore your vote caused, described by one admin as ' baseless and shameful ' and by another as 'What a disgraceful stereotyping of one of the most dedicated editors we have!' (bolding mine) I'm surprised you have the nerve to participate in an RfA again. Your perforkmance there would have been enough for a topic ban from future RfAs, but we don't do that, do we? RfA has to be kept as the one place on Wikipedia where one can be as nasty as possible with total impunity. And as regards the The Signpost article, which you pretend here to be an RfA vote, you obviously didn't read the latest edition, because you would have beenmotre guarded with your comment. What you have done, and in not a particularly well veiled manner, especially citing to The Signpost, is doubly underlined your strange and curious attitude towards women which on Wikipedia is almost ban and block worthy. I was generous in my journalism that I did not mention your name in that article as an example of what's wrong with RfA and why some people are hell bent on keeping it as a cesspit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A classic example [10] of mobbing that you chose to resuscitate in your Signpost article.[11] Xxanthippe (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I am disappointed to be called a misogynist, which is where the long blue link above leads, and I deny being one. I have edited much on topics involving women. My two contributions with the largest edit counts (306 and 209) are to biographies of prominent nineteenth-century women and I have done genealogical research for another. I have contributed to the Women in Red project, where I have tried to make my edits constructive and supportive. I was pleased to see the direction in which that project's activities are currently heading. [12] Xxanthippe (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • I agree with Kudpung in principle, although my approach to Wikipediocracy is probably similar to 28bytes and other editors that have been editing for a long while; as the project becomes more prominent, it's healthy and perhaps even necessary to have one site dedicated to criticism. While most of the recent posts there at WO may simply be garbage, there does not seem to be other better alternatives at the moment. Being able to locate just a few legitimate criticisms once in a while that would help us to reflect on the mistakes we may have made would make the occasional visit there worthwhile. Alex Shih (talk) 05:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism sites, maybe, Alex, but they should critique our concept and content. The sheer downright bloody-mindedness and obnoxious outing and hanging people out to dry is something the owners of that site still need to learn is not what the Internet was created for. But of course, they revel in it. People love drama, ever since the ancient Greeks and Shakespear. I'm just curious why the JBH RfA has attracted so many voters in the first place - has something been going on behind the scenes? Well, Wikipediocracy for one thing... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the case at hand, no "outing" occurred. The only identification of JBH was by JBH, and that is easily verified. Nor do I have any remote idea of JBH's identity, other than what JBH has averred at all. I do not know if the folks running WPO know his identity either. Collect (talk) 06:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you just calm down, Collect. I never said anything about outing 'In the case at hand'. I was very careful to only generalise about an off-Wiki site. Don't misinterpret what people say. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Um -- sorry for reading "The sheer downright bloody-mindedness and obnoxious outing …" as implying that any "outing" occurred when it was clearly rhetorical on your part. Collect (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Every time I've reported outing on WO, it's been promptly taken down by the moderators. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I only pop onto Wikipediocracy every now and then to read the "Crap Articles" thread - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spit Like This was a direct result of reading it, even down to copying the "more puffery than ..." quip. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crat Chat

The 'crats are perfectly capable of deciding on their own whether they need to have a chat or not. —DoRD (talk)​ 11:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As I said elsewhere recently, the tally (as I write this) of support / oppose / neutral is very close to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing, and hence I would expect to see a 'crat chat. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Percentage is same as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Brianhe, though that RfA didn't involved any crat chat. Rzvas (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Godsy did have a crat chat. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just about numbers; if there's a clear-enough consensus within that 65-75 range, then there's no need for a cratchat. I'm not saying there is, of course—either way. For the record, there have been twenty-two crat-chats so far; seven of them have been successful...  :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Process comments moved from main page

Disappearring !vote
@Airbornemihir: - instead of just removing your !vote completely, perhaps you could leave it place and just strike out your entry (eg: strike out your entry), then leave a brief note about the change, such as "changing to oppose", or "neutral" or "decided not to participate" (or whatever else you'd like to add). Thank you - wolf 06:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Thewolfchild: I responded at your talk page. Airbornemihir (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On answering questions – there are a couple of opposes noting that Jbh didn't answer the last questions asked. I recall seeing somewhere that answering questions is optional – is that so, or am I just imagining things? –FlyingAce✈hello 18:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FlyingAce: answering questions is optional, in that it will not invalidate the RfA if they are unanswered; opposition !voters may oppose for most any reason though. — xaosflux Talk 18:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FlyingAce: They are "optional", however, if a candidate refrains from answering the vast majority to all of the additional questions, it is unlikely the RfA will pass. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to avoid anyone’s being inadvertently misled, noting that he’s now answered all the questions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh!

The discussion has been held open for so long (11 hours by my count), and so many last minute !votes have come in, that he is on the verge of breaking 200 supports - regardless of how the result comes out. Think he'll make it? --MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kinda having fun running the numbers here, although in principle I disapprove of keeping the RfA open this long... The candidate could get 4 new support votes and enter WP:200 without changing his numerical percentage from 70; he'd just barely cross over to 71 if all 10 neutral voters were to flip to support. (This is the current state.) Airbornemihir (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to figure exactly when 14:26 was - my numbers tend to be off by an hour - but it looks to me as if the totals then were 184 support, 82 oppose. The numbers now are 196 support, 86 oppose. So even with all the shifting of !votes and last minute !votes and such, it looks as if the last minute changes were pretty much in proportion to the existing vote and wound up with the same percentage. (69.1 then, rounds to 69; 69.5 now, rounds to 70.) Interesting. I had been in favor of keeping it open while !voting was going on, so I like it that 16 additional people got to !vote. Maybe even more important, there was a lot of discussion that may help the 'crats figure out what they want to do here. --MelanieN (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the last minute !voters may have been influenced by the Opabinia externa !vote in support. At least one mentioned it and I might have done so as well had I remembered that was an alternate Opabinia account. On the other hand, maybe it was just as well that I gave my own analysis without referring to others' comments in this case. Your comment is very fair and generous, Melanie. You opposed (with good reason) but the Opabinia support and the last minute !voters might well push this over to successful. Donner60 (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's up to the 'crats. That's why they get the big bucks. --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As long as they now realise that the (late) freeze for voting stood at 70%. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that I was unclear. I realize it is up to the 'crats. I even put at the end of my !vote the following: "As the time winds down and it appears this will end in the discretionary range, it will be up to the 'crats to decide. That may be just as well considering all of the disparate opinions." What I was trying to say above is that the increase of the support percentage to 70% might persuade the 'crats to deem the RfA as successful. I didn't mean to say that one crat would decide that it was successful, though it seems that is how it appears. In any event, that increase of the support percentage may not be enough to persuade the crats, if the first crat's vote is followed. Donner60 (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, during the "late" period the numerical vote count moved from ~69.17% support to ~69.50%, this number is negligible to me for sure. — xaosflux Talk 04:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One more clarification. I realize the crats will be determining consensus and not deciding it on the voting percentage. Nonetheless, moving from near the bottom of the discretionary range to the middle should be some at least indication of consensus, especially if good reasons are given by some of the late !voters. Donner60 (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Jbhunley&oldid=1137439898"