Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/RyanGerbil10


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it .

RyanGerbil10
Final (7/10/3); Ended 20:26 4 March 2007

- Along the same lines as W. Marsh's nomination, I feel the time is right to make a request for bureaucratship. I have been a contributor to Wikipedia since November of 2004, and had a registered account since December 2004. I have been active, with over 9,000 edits, for approximately one year, with occasional breaks due to schoolwork and personal reflection. Several of my personal responsibilities have diminished over the past few weeks, and appear unlikely to come up again any time soon. In light of this change in my personal situation, I believe I would have the time and dedication available to serve our community in this position of trust and importance. I have been a follower of the RfA process for several months, and even though I have generally not commented in discussions concerning it, I have read with great interest what people have to say about the process.

I believe I am well-qualified to be a bureaucrat because of my understanding of the RfA process (I have participated in over 200 RfAs) and my experience as an administrator, especially in gauging consensus (I have closed over 1,000 TfDs, only one of which was officially overturned). I know I have been largely inactive over the past month, but if someone else had volunteered to proofread my 45-page draft for my business class, I would of course have been more active. However, these obligations are behind me, and I have little but time to contribute to the project. It is for these reasons I ask the community to debate my credentials and decide whether or not it trusts me to hold this position. RyanGerbil10 (Упражнение В!) 08:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

At this time, I would like to amend my statement to address some of the concerns that have been raised here. So far, there appear to be three lines of reasoning oppose voters are taking in response to my nomination. These would be that more bureaucrats are not needed, that I am not consistently active enough, and that I don't have the mentality the community expects a bureaucrat to have.

At the moment, I would agree with Jeffrey O. Gustafson that more bureaucrats are not needed, in the sense that a heart transplant is not needed. However, I would say that more bureaucrats are needed in the sense that a healthier diet is needed. Wikipedia is not suffering from proverbial heart failure, where damage will be both real and immediately apparent, but I would argue that it doesn't hurt to have more hands able to do certain jobs. There is no short run need for more bureaucrats, but there's no sense basing things on the short run when we (hopefully) plan on being here for quite a while longer.

The second concern which has been raised is that I am not consistently active enough to be trusted to perform the duties of a bureaucrat on a regular, long term basis. Looking strictly at my contribution history, this appears to be a very real problem. Throughout most of February, I was quite inactive in terms of editing, due to my midterms and other class responsibilities. Even though I didn't edit regularly, I was very aware of on-wiki activity. I read, each morning, the AN and the AN/I, and checked the BN several times a day (as a summary of open adminship requests, it can't be beat). Even during periods of inactivity, I tend to participate in my favored wiki-area. During my nearly year-long absence in 2005, I contributed to WP:FAC often. During this past month, I have read, but not voted in, almost all RfAs (I chose not to vote in many of these because the outcomes were assured), and during other shorter periods of inactivity, I have still commented on RfAs even if I haven't been checking TfD every day.

The third of these concerns seems to be that I do not have the mentality the community wishes a bureaucrat to have. This is, at least to me, one of the most endemic problems at RfB. Candidates are skewered for saying "Damn the percentages! I'm independent," just as they are for saying "We have rules for a reason! RfA nominations with 74.99% support must fail!" Obviously, these are extremely exaggerated positions, and no candidate seriously acts this way. All I can do is reiterate that I am neither of those things. Bureaucrats are given a great amount of trust by the community to make decisions, not to strictly count votes or act completely unilaterally. I would like to think that I can be that person to the community, one who makes wise decisions. Statement amended 18:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

To explain my comment on W.marsh's RfB (the bad idea comment) it's a reference to my RfA, which at the time, I also considered a bad idea. RyanGerbil10 (Упражнение В!) 08:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Oh no I forgot this part, I guess... I accept, of course. RyanGerbil10 (Упражнение В!) 17:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

'''I hereby withdraw. The community has made its feelings about my candidacy known. Although I am disappointed, I am still interested in further helpng the community in positions of high trust, and will take the comments here to heart. Thank you all for your time, and happy wiki-ing. RyanGerbil10 (Упражнение В!) 20:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)'''

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 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 read the discussions surrounding WP:RFA and understand the following: The criteria for admin promotion are fairly well-defined. Above 80%, a request has never failed (indeed, no recent request has failed above 78%). Requests below 75% fail in the vast majority of cases. Extremely controversial promotions have occurred below this threshold, but are rare and have required a very detailed explanation from the closing bureaucrat. I do not intend to make such promotions, nor would I encourage other bureaucrats to do so. Between 75% and 80% is the range of bureaucrat discretion. RfA noms which are within this range require careful consideration of every comment, and oftentimes, a decision either way is perceived by the community at large as controversial.
 * 2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
 * A. I would deal with these the same way I deal with controversial TfDs. I must base my decision on both policy and precedent, and be extremely careful to be precise in my reasoning and civil in my comments at all times. I understand that many users feel very strongly about adminship promotions, and these strong feelings must be treated very carefully in contentious situations. However, adminship promotions are final decisions (at least in the short term for all practical purposes) and users must be made to understand that although I value their concerns, the community has vested trust in me to make these sorts of important decisions, and that they will not change.
 * 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 I have a very strong track record. I have closed over 1,000 debates, some of them very contentious, with extremely few official complaints from any participants in those debates. I have never been seriously accused of violating any of our policies which concern fairness and community communication (i.e, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, etc.)
 * 4. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on any other forum during the course of nominations and especially when making a decision? And to discuss issues of promotion or non-promotion only with other bureaucrats, in their talk, or at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard where such discussion would be transparent?
 * A. Absolutely. I've never been on IRC, and I dislike the concept of any wiki-related conversation taking place off-wiki.
 * 5. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?
 * A. Wikipedia's main page is my home page. And going on-line is the first thing I do when I wake up, and the last thing I do before going to bed. Even if I don't constantly contribute to conversations, I read them with fervor and regularity.
 * 6. Determining consensus is a crucial part of Wikipedia, more-so to our bureaucrats as they have a lot of trust placed in them. Have a look at this RfA, then please give an idea as to what you believe the consensus is there and if you'd of promoted the user. Matthew 08:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A. This is definitely one of the most contentious nominations I have ever come across. As a strict intrepretation of rules, I would technically be unable to comment, as I voted (support) in this nomination. I agree with the decision made in this case, which was to make Ryulong an administrator. However, I do not believe this promotion was made correctly, as the bureaucrat position is understood within the community today. The job of a bureaucrat is to gauge consensus and act accordingly. It is not to do whatever that bureaucrat feels would benefit the community the most. I do not believe there was consensus as it was understood in RfA at the time. To quote WP:BCRAT directly, "They [Bureaucrats] are bound by policy and consensus to grant administrator status..." Although I believe that WP:IAR can be applied to Bureaucrat decisions, I do not believe it benefits the community to do so, as these actions can cause much more disagreement and discord than editor or even administrator actions. In short, do I agree with the Ryulong decision? Yes. Would I have ever done it? No. In my mind, an extremely controversial promotion, though it may give the encyclopedia a valuable admin, adds an element of discord which is completely unneeded.


 * General comments


 * See RyanGerbil10's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.



Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion



Support Oppose
 * 1) Excellent candidate. I thought I might have to run to help replace Essjay but Ryan will likely do the job better than I would. JoshuaZ 08:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) He had my support either way, the answer is exactly what I was looking for. Matthew 08:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3)   Grue   10:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, I think he'd make an excellent bcrat and I'm not worried that he's been an admin since July 2006 as he's been a very active admin. Rlevse 12:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support This is my first ever vote on a crat nomination so I am not knowledgable in this kind of thing. As far as I can tell, this user is good and deserves my vote. Also, we definately need more bureaucrats due to the resignation of Essjay. For now, I will support. Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  13:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) - NYC JD (make a motion) 14:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support very good contributor; will make a good 'crat. ~  Arjun  14:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, a good contributor, but the responses to question no. 4 and 5 are not satisfactory to me. I am not sure about the candidate's activity. Shyam  ( T / C ) 08:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I generally prefer at least a year of adminship before thinking about bureaucratship.  Ral315 » 11:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per my long held standards. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 15:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Except with Essjay's resignation we do this time.  Majorly  (o rly?) 15:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Majorly, we do need an extra bureacrat now that Essjay left to reduce the workload of our remainding active ones. Jaranda wat's sup 16:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Jaranda, as a matter of interest, can you say why we need more bureaucrats? We have 10 active ones, plus Kingturtle who's on the inactive list but says he's still active. Glancing through their logs, I can't see signs of a heavy workload. Am I missing something? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We just lost our most active bureaucrat. Only about half the active ones perform any bcrat duties, so I think the workload will increase.  Majorly  (o rly?) 16:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea, with Essjay leaving I could only count two bureaucrats, Taxman and Redux with occacially Raul654 that is active in RFA while another, Nichalp and occationally Rdsmith4 who are active in username rename. Essjay does most of the bot approval as well. The rest are rather inactive like Linuxbeak. Another b-crat to replace Essjay won't hurt the project. Jaranda wat's sup 17:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Minor point: Whatś not shown in the logs are the fact that we also close failed nominations. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The argument that we will need more crats for x and x reason has never held water with me. There are more than enough for the amount of crats we have now, even throwing out the inactive.  Despite our exponential growth there is never a need to close more than two or three RfA's a day, and if you look right above, for the next week there is an average of one per day.  Completely doable.  Essjay's did a ton of work in many places, but everybody is expendable and we will adapt just fine without him in the individual areas where he will be gone.  To say that there is sudden need now that he is gone belittles the abilities and proficiencies of our current crats, checkusers, and whatnots.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 17:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Prior polite disagreements regarding RfA standards leave me a bit uncertain of his judgment at RfA. That wouldn't lead to an oppose all by itself; however, I am also mildly unhappy with the answers to questions. Xoloz 16:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Ryan has shown himself to be a very capable and reliable admin, and my opposition has nothing to do with his character or integrity. Unfortunately his answers above do not reflect the mindset I expect of a bureaucrat. Rje 17:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Anything in particular? I'm sure Ryan would like to know what you didn't like about the answers.  Majorly  (o rly?) 17:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that there is any merit in promoting a candidate who will shy away from making tough decisions. I also think that Ryan is too self-conscious about not upsetting other people, to the extent that this will influence his decisions. Rje 17:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Decline Majorly and Jeffrey Gustafson make good points. As for replacing Essjay, I think its too early to calibrate the need for new additions to the ranks. I'm also concerned that the candidate has not discussed what he thinks and how he'd do the various jobs. Personal situations change at a moment's notice - I would like to see a candidate who is applying because he/she is committed to do the job consistently, to be here. The community is fully aware and respects the demands of real-life, so this is not really an unreasonable demand. Nobody demands that admins, b'crats devote all their spare time to WP, but the community needs to know that these folks will make a fortright commitment. Rama's arrow  17:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Per above. Have some respect. Are RfA's and WP:CHU really taking that long to be processed? — P ilotguy go around  17:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) We need not to rush into a decision immediately following the loss of an active bureaucrat. I am also unconvinced of the candidate's qualification. I would be glad to reconsider when the recent fuss has died down. &mdash; Dan | talk 18:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) I'm not prepared to support anyone for bureaucrat so soon after Essjay's departure. Mackensen (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not !voting on this RFB, but I dislike these comments and they aren't helpful to the candidate. Are we in a state of mourning, or are we going to move on with our lives? Seriously, if things need to be done and we need people to do it, why are we disallowing people on the basis of we miss the old position holder? If you have a legit reason for opposing, I'm sorry Mackensen, but I saw nothing remotely helpful. — Moe  19:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me say what I thought best left unsaid: I find running for bureaucrat so soon and with explicit reference to Essjay's departure unseemly. I am not prepared to support someone whose conduct I find unseemly. Mackensen (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Given recent events it is very tempting to say, we're a man down better replace him ASAP, I'm however more concerned that doesn't just turn into a knee jerk reaction. I'd rather let the dust settle first --pgk 19:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) I think you'd make a great bureaucrat, but I'm going neutral because I'm concerned with the lack of activity. I read your reasoning for last month, but what about November and December? They're pretty low as well. I'd like a bureaucrat who is here on a regular basis, not just popping in to close the occasional RfA. I'm sorry, I'd just like someone a little more active. Perhaps later on when you've got less stuff on? Really sorry, can't oppose because I don't think you'd do anything stupid, but I just don't want another hardly active 'crat.  Majorly  (o rly?) 13:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I can't support any RfB at a time like this, after my comment during Essjay exchange. You are indeed qualified, and I wish you good luck, but personally, I don't think Essjay's disappearance _at this time_ will be noted in his RfB duties. In fact, I think he will be most missed in his Arbitration and Mediation efforts than in his bureaucrat ones. -- ReyBrujo 14:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree with Majorly, 8 months is more than enough time for b-crat, little too inactive in my taste though Jaranda wat's sup 16:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.