Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:08, 5 July 2007

RyanGerbil10

Voice your opinion (talk page) (16/3/1); Scheduled to end 23:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

RyanGerbil10 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - In continuing with the spree of bureaucrat nominations, I would like to nominate myself once more. I last ran immediately after the departure of User:Essjay, who resigned his status in what was a very painful and unexpected episode. I must agree with some of the users who opposed my nomination last time around, my timing couldn't have been been much worse. Arguably, I could be falling into the same trap now. However, I would ask the community to overlook the time I have chosen to ask for this important position, and instead to consider the qualifications and shortcomings I have in relation to it.

As a general overview, I joined Misplaced Pages in December 2004. I was inactive for most of 2005, as many before me have signed up in great enthusiasm, only to languish shortly after. I began sustained and continuous activity in March of 2006, and became an admin on July 26, 2006, almost one year ago. In all of the intervening time, I have accumulated over 12,000 edits, written many articles, and closed over 1,000 TfDs, which have been my main area of admin concentration. In terms of raw numbers, I have used my admin abilities approximately 2,400 times in the year I have had access to them.

There are two main reasons why I would ask the community to consider my suitability for this position of both high trust and power. Firstly, I would like to help the community in any way I can, and seeking new positions of responsibility can help me along that road. Secondly, I believe that my extensive experience at TfD qualifies me in a way unique among admins. TfD is unusual and is different than AfD, recent changes patrol, CSD backlog clearing, or blocking of abusive editors, where many other admins exercise their privileges. TfD, as a relative backwater of the XfD process (though not as much as other areas), often contains extremely murky decisions, requiring careful consideration of previous, similar outcomes, the weight of relative arguments, and the number of voices behind each rationale in a debate. Frequently, the evidence presented by voters in a TfD is lacking, conflicting, or just a mess. I would like to think that my extensive experience in closing these sorts of debates is the type of experience which might inspire confidence in the community as it considers my request.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. RyanGerbil10(One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you) 23:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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. Yes, I have read these discussions. The criteria for promotion are paradoxical in that they are numerically simple yet practically complex. I understand the most general form of these criteria to be as follows:

• The community expects that nominations with n>80% support always pass.
• Some in the community accept 70% percent as the bottom of the "discretionary range," wherein bureaucrats are expected to use the reasoning the community has recognized in them to reach a satisfactory closing.
• Some in the community accept 75% as the bottom of this range.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A. A decision must be reached by finding a compromise between two forces: The sheer percentages as given by the number of opinions expressed at the end of the nomination, and the relative merit of both the volume and substance of the opinions. A rationale explaining this decision need not be given at the time the nomination is closed, but should be readily avaliable if requested by the community. A key point in making these decisions is not to give too much weight to either of these two forces.

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. As I expressed in my general nomination, my extensive experience in TfD demonstrates knowledge of several policies, including notability, and most recently, image copyright. However, these are not exactly relevant to bureaucratship. Although it should be a given for a position of such high community trust, I would like to point out that I have accumulated 12,000 edits with not only an absolutely clean block log, but no warnings of breaching any policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, or WP:NPA. Although I am not extremely active with other users, I am sure that any other users I have had contact with would testify to my level-headedness and reasonable demeanor.

4. 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. Yes. I do so every day, or nearly every day.

5. (Self-question. Stolen from User:Walton monarchist89). Given that Danny's RfA closed at only 68% support, with over 100 good-faith opposes from established users, do you believe it was right for him to be promoted? I'm not asking for an opinion on Danny himself, but on the bureaucrats' closure of that RfA, which ignored 100 people's opinions given in good faith.

A. I am obviously convinced, then as now, of Danny's abilities to adequately fulfill the position, as indicated by my support vote in the original nomination. In regards to the bureaucrats' decision in closing the nomination, I cannot say I can think of a more judicious way to have closed the nomination. In addition to more than 100 users who, in good faith, objected to the nomination, more than 250 users supported, in good faith. To have blandly closed the nomination as "no consensus" would have been a poor choice. I think that given the extremely contentious and conflicting conditions surrounding the nomination, including the high number of opinions expressed, the fact that Danny presumably could have simply asked for his rights back, and the extremely heated debate regarding the merits of several oppose rationales, the way in which the nomination was closed was an imperfect, yet creditable, and even acceptable, decision reached in due discussion and consideration.

6. (Self-question, from myself). In what ways do you think you have satisfactorily addressed concerns raised on your last RfB?

A. Honestly, I have done two main things:

• Check my calendar and make sure it is not March.
• Be more judicious in voting in RfAs. Many, if not all of my more recent opinions on RfAs, have come with several lines of careful, thoughtful, reasoning.

7. What do you think of User:Voice_of_All/Consensus? You seem more less like a good candidate, I'm just concerned over were the limit is drawn on when crats can override the RfA consensus/majority, especially after reading the Danny RfA question? I do like how you mention how monolithic the rationals are, as everyone agreeing for reason X is much stronger than a huge disarray of random reasons. Voice-of-All 03:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A. I think the essay does an excellent job of highlighting the concepts of consensus as understood on Misplaced Pages. However, it also implies those things which are difficult about consensus. The essay does not, and cannot reasonably, give firm sets of rules or provide a complete picture of consensus. This is where the paradox lies - nearly everyone agrees what constitutes consensus in general, but the application of these widely agreed-upon principles specifically lacks, you might say, consensus. I agree with your reading of my answer to the Danny RfA question: Had opposition been more fractious, I would be tempted to say "yes, I would definitely have promoted." (Unless, of course, the reason for the discord among opposers was a multitude of valid reasons to oppose, which is not always the case) The solid block of oppose reasons should have been enough to prevent Danny's promotion, but taking a concept from the essay, the rationality of the entire monolith of opposes was questioned quite effectively, tiliting the scales and throwing determination of consensus into doubt. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 06:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Question from Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC):

8. In the past, I have noted a concept in the WT:RFA archives somewhere about "scientific scaling" of RfAs in that, in general, it would seem that the commnity thinks an individual member may have different personal standards as to what they expect of a candidate, but that it would be preferable that a given person treats candidates consistently with their standards. In some cases, there are often mutterings about people moving the bar lower because they are friends with a given candidate or conversely some people can suddenly raise the bar for some guy that they don't like. People are always grumbling about RfAs being popularity contests and so forth. How would you deal with a case, for instance, where some person perhaps got 80-85% in raw numbers, but this occurred because a group of people went soft on them for some reason (eg when some person only made 800 article edits and/or only wrote 1 stub or had only been around for 2 months - but some people who have soft spot waived their usual requirements for 2000 edits, multiple non stubs, 5 months etc etc,). Conversely, what would you do if they were below the grey zone, but had a whole group of people who suddenly used uncharacteristically high standards (eg when they oppose citing less common reasons, or selectively quoting 1FA or lack of article writing or vandal fighting, when they usually support people at a much lower bar) - This could be because the people are either "under-rated" and "unfashionable" as well as rank undisguised retaliation against an argument somewhere. What is your opinion on calibrating the opinions in such grey cases with unusual supports/oppositions? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A. I promise I will answer this question, but it is past 2:30AM local time and I simply must go to bed (I have to go to work!) :) RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 06:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Question from JayHenry

9 A few months ago you informally proposed a "process for deadminship" whereby administrators could have their sysop rights removed. What are your current thoughts on this proposal and your reasoning behind it? --JayHenry 05:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A. I promise I will answer this question, but it is past 2:30AM local time and I simply must go to bed (I have to go to work!) :) RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 06:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See RyanGerbil10's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• First RfB: Misplaced Pages:Requests for bureaucratship/RyanGerbil10

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

1. Support I think you can do it this time. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  23:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. You will do well. bibliomaniac15 23:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Support -- shorten the ("physical", not editorial) sig though please. Otherwise you seem fine. Its just the "(One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you)" thats bugging me. Anonymous Dissident 23:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   Changed. "One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you" is the first line of my laser tag's team's pre-game chant. It's more logical than some of the other talk page links I've used, like "Kick 'em in the dishpan." RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 00:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

   But you are proposing bureaucratship. They are not. Anonymous Dissident 00:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

   Oh, I know. I just moved to a new region of the country, and laser tag is the only social outlet I have right now, so it tends to crop up all over the place... RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 00:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

   I was just saying because, assuming you get promoted, you want to make things clear, and (One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you) doesnt exactly eminate "authority" (as sych) or clarity. --Anonymous Dissident 00:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

4. Support. Trustworthy. Andre (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
5. No noticeable problems that I can see... --Dark Falls 00:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
6. Support I trust this user make the best decisions involving bureaucrat tasks. Captain panda 00:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
7. Good fellow; see "neutral" section for further rationale gaillimh 00:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
8. -- Y not? 00:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
9. Support. Ryan should make a good 'crat. -- DS1953 00:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
10. Support I trust this user. --Banana 01:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
11. Support one of you should get through, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be you. Black Harry • Happy Independence Day 02:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
12. Very strong support another. Acalamari 03:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
13. Support I don't think experience with RFA is a sine qua non for bureaucratship (though I see that Ryangerbil knows the system well). The real question is, how much experience do you have judging consensus? Calling TFDs as keep or delete provides excellent experience, and if he's really done 1,000 of those (an astonishing number), I'd trust him to make the call on admins and usernames. Shalom 03:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
14. Support A trustworty user. --Siva1979 04:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
15. Support Excellent answer to Q1.AKAF 07:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
16. Support. You answered the questions to my satisfaction, and I'm satisfied you'll make a good bureaucrat. --Deskana (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
17. Support. Per Walton. Yes, I know what section that's in.⇒ SWATJester 16:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose per answer to the Danny question. As I've clearly stated on other RfBs, I believe that RfA has to be a vote, in order to ensure that bureaucrats do not take on personal power, and to make sure that the opinions of every good-faith established user are given equal weight. As such, the closure of Danny's RfA was totally wrong, and anyone who describes it as "judicious" should never be a bureaucrat. Walton 08:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose I won't hold the "Danny" thing against anyone. However, in my past interactions with Ryan here at RfA (which have involved colloquies on a few different candidates), his replies have been brief and sometimes cryptic. This is not the sort of quality I hope to see in a b'crat, who must be prepared to justify a decision through elaboration. He is a nice guy, though, I'll say that. :) Xoloz 14:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Strong Oppose Per Walton. ~ Wikihermit 16:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
4. Support - I trust Ryan to be a good judge of consensus. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I'm a bit perplexed at the tone of Ryan's nomination only in that I've been paraphrasing a previous comment of his for quite some time now when it comes to bureaucrat nominations. He once made an analogy along the lines of "it's good to have more clerks in the checkout counter" when referring to the desire for more 'crats. I think he worded this a bit more eloquently, but to speak of this position now so loftily sort of goes against what he's been saying previously. As I actually used this analogy today, I obviously agreed with him in the past and would have loved to give him my hearty support today - his referring to this position (which is kind of a big deal, but nothing so serious as he makes it out to be) so loftily is just a bit off-putting. I could very well be misreading this and would surely appreciate any comments. As mentioned, he's been a stellar volunteer in the past, and I would actually like very much to support his request; I just can't quite get myself right with his view on what a 'crat is / isn't gaillimh 23:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   Oh, I wondered when this would come up. I recently took a writing class where the professor had a very influential and, if I might say, distinctive, style. Unfortunately, I think I may have picked up some parts of this, which I think might stand out rather starkly against my usual style. Use of adjectives aside, I can guarantee that I feel the same way about bureaucratship as I have always felt. I hate to sound like I am quickly dismissing your opinion, but that's the explanation behind my new "loftiness," not some wiki-philosophical shift. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 00:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

   Cheers, thanks for the response mate! So is a bureaucrat a position of both high trust and power as you mention in your opening statement, or is it just worded a bit oddly, or am I missing something? I've previously interpreted your stance on the bureaucrat position to be "clerks in a checkout counter"; that is, not a huge deal, the more the merrier, we just need people who have the trust of the community to determine community consensus rationally and clearly. Hehe, my sincere apologies, but I cannot seem to reconcile this gaillimh 00:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

   To delve further into murky analogies, maybe it's something like this: clerks at the checkout counter ... at a gun store. No big deal (it's an easy job to get), but yet trust and power are required (would you hire just anyone if you were a gun store owner?) I think what I want to say is that even though the actual responsibilities are no big deal, the process of installing someone in this "no big deal" position should not be done lightly. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 00:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

   Haha, cheers, thanks for spending some of your valuable time to clear things up for me. Well said, by the way, all things considered, hehe. Good luck! gaillimh 00:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)