User:IronGargoyle/RfB

[ Voice your opinion] (|talk page) (0/0/0); scheduled to end +7 days

Nomination
–


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept.

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 have, and there are a number of points that I want to address here. Firstly, I will paint—in broad strokes—what the community norms are now in terms of numbers. "Discretion" in closing RfAs typically falls somewhere around 70 and 75% support (support over support+oppose) in actual practice. There have been exceptions to that, but they are rare. RfA is not a vote obviously—it is a discussion—but it is worth mentioning for a moment why it is not a vote. We hear the expression "a discussion is not a vote", and the first thing we normally think of is the idea of "closing on the strength of policy and arguments". This is valid, but it is only one half of the picture. The other half is the necessary (and healthy) interplay between participants in the discussion. Voters don't interact with one another. You read discussant X's comment, and this may change your own !vote accordingly. Discussant Z may then read your comment, agree (or disagree), and then !vote consistently (or contrarily). This complex interplay is normal, and it is the most important "discussion" aspect of RfA. It is important to see the whole picture of the discussion through the facet of this interplay. I'm not saying the strength of arguments are not important, but there are fewer clear policies about what "we should look for in and admin" versus "what we should look for in an article" (i.e. WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS). Yes, community norms may give less weight to arguments like "Too many administrators currently", but these arguments are the exception and not the rule.


 * I apologize for the statistical terms I may throw about here. MBisanz's RfB attracted a minor degree of flack for his discussion of a normal distribution in the discretionary range. As a statistician, these terms have inherent appeal to me. I use these points to illustrate my reasoning, however, not because I use normal distributions to close discussions (I don't). The reason why RfA acts more like a vote is because you have a larger sample of the population. Most RfAs today have well over 50 participants. The larger your sample, the less sampling error there will be. An XfD with 4 participants is much more likely to be adversely impacted by a single policy-inconsistent !vote, than is an RfA with 80 participants. This doesn't change the fact that it still is not a vote. Although we don't usually have 80 editors at each RfA spouting off stupid oppose reasons (most editors on both sides of any debate are clueful), There can still be those few exceptions where considering the strength of argument can make a difference. The need for vigilance to recognize these rare cases are why the bureaucrat job can't be occupied by a robot or well-trained monkey.


 * 2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
 * A. I would most likely discuss this with other bureaucrats. I don't like the term "'crat-chat" (it sounds silly), but if that's the term you would like to use, so be it. :) I don't think this discussion needs to be particularly large or long in most cases. The first check would be for independent agreement. I would always try to avoid groupthink, however, and would make a point of playing an informed "devil's advocate" in any bureaucrats' discussion (as I do internally at deletion review), so that both sides of a controversial issues would be thoroughly examined.


 * 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. I feel as though I've always behaved in a fair manner in my nearly four years on Wikipedia (more than three as an administrator). As Julian points out, I have more than 15,000 live edits (16,000 counting deleted). Although this is a small number compared with many admins today (16k still seems like a huge number to me), I have used automated tools only seldom (although I am the a bot-op of User:GargoyleBot). I have substantial experience in closing some of the most contentious discussions on Wikipedia—namely those at Deletion Review. I find these discussions to be fascinating to break down and determine consensus, but this means that I spend much research and energy for that one "discussion-close" edit. In the past years I have never been at the center of any substantial controversies—save in the role as a neutral adjudicator of controversial XfDs and DRVs. I have also been in a position of trust as an m:OTRS volunteer. I enjoy analyzing discussions, and I wouldn't be requesting bureaucratship if I didn't think I would relish the task. In other words, it has nothing to do with the "power" or "prestige" of the position (those quotes are important I think).


 * As with any discussion closer, I have received both praise and criticism for my closes at times. I think what is more telling, however, is that I have always been open, friendly, and communicative about my closes to those criticizing or commenting on them them. I cannot think of any instance where I have been uncivil to an individual questioning a close. Although there is occasional criticism, my closes have often been praised by those who !voted on the ultimately "losing" side. I feel as though I am deliberative and detailed in my closes when needed—but yet I do not overstep my bounds as a neutral determiner of consensus, nor do I make comments just to hear myself talk. I join a discussion when I feel as though I have something meaningful to contribute and have done the necessary research to back up my assertions. Finally, I feel as though I'm noncontroversial and non-factional enough so that I could close most RfAs without any conflict of interest or bias.

General comments

 * Links for :
 * Edit summary usage for can be found here.
 * Promote (bureaucrats only)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

 * I suggest we make this nominee a bureaucrat because .....
 * I've got concerns that lead me to think that's a bad idea...
 * Have folks considered that...?

Support

 * 1) Support
 * 2) Support

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose
 * 2) Oppose

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral
 * 2) Neutral