Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/RyanGerbil10 2

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

RyanGerbil10

Closed without consensus by

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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. 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.

I apologize for responding so late, but I just read your answer to question 2. RfA decision are not compromise situations. You don't take a little of this and a little of that. Either you promote or you don't promote, and you need to be on firm ground when Wikipedians ask you why. That means looking for clarity in an apparently unclear discussion. That's not called compromise. -- Cecropia 22:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but a compromise between these two forces can lead to a concrete result. In a nomination where I have decided to promote when percentages may indicate that I shouldn't, I can say "Well yes, I understand that the percentage is quite low and I took that under consideration, however..." In a nomination where I decide not to promote when percentages say I generally should have, I can say the exact opposite. Not every nomination with the same percentage is the same, and these two forces don't exert equal weight each time. Consensus does not have a number attached to it, only careful evaluation of difficult situations can show the presence of consensus. As bureaucrats are to carry out the will of the community, it would be correct to promote when a candidate is opposed for reasons which the community soundly rejects and it would be correct not to promote when a smaller minority than usually present provides extremely relevant evidence. If this is not a compromise between two forces, I am not sure what is. Decisions in RfA are discrete, binary; however, the reasoning behind them need not, should not, be so. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 05:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you describing an approach to finding consensus or refereeing a war? -- Cecropia 05:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure I see a meaningful difference. In RfAs nowadays we have a bloc of users who feel the stakes are very high indeed. We have spite opposers, protest supporters, vocierferous clashes over oppose criteria, and a never-ending "discussion" over the suitability of the entire process. Compare these with fanatics, nationalists, the rules of engagament and the peace movement. As it stands today, now that you mention it, RfA is not a simple, peaceful process - look at my oppose votes - and as such the process cannot be judged in a simple way. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 12:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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: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: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.

What do you mean "judicious"? A telegraphed result was made to look good? The substance of your reply above suggests that the bureaucrats were right to promote him because he was a good guy, no matter what more than 100 opposers expressed. This was not consensus. -- Cecropia 22:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I mean that the decision was thoroughly and transparently considered. By judicious, I mean that the bureaucrats saw an unavoidable controversy and took actions they believed would reduce the controversy in any way they could. Promoting Danny would mean overruling 118 opposers, but not promoting would ignore 265 supporters. In this way, I believe that the bureaucrats involved acted judiciously by explaining, very carefully and openly, what they did what they did, and how they arrived at the conclusion they did. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 05:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I don't think there would have been any less controversy had the Danny nomination been closed as "no consensus," especially considering the strenuous opposition to the opposition rationales which were given. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 05:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you have an entirely different view of the bureaucrat's role in RfA is than I do. A bureaucrat needs to make a decision that reflects the will of the community in relation to the standards of RfA and that promotes respect for the process and confidence that the decision was made impartially and above the passions of one or another group or the status of the nominee. Reducing controversy is not the job of the bureaucrat; making a decision that those on both "sides" can understand was reached fairly is. Your claim to respect the 265 supporters over the 118 opposers ignores the fact that a founding principle of RfA is that it is not a 50-50 process. All contentious (and many or most non-contentious) RfAs will fail consensus with more supporters than opposers. -- Cecropia 15:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are two areas where you are misinterpreting what I have said. Firstly, I never said it was the duty, or even concern, of bureaucrats to reduce controversy for a given decision. It was, however, a wise move. If their extremely controversial decision (to promote Danny) had simply been done, as a normal RfA is closed, I think the very least that would have transpired would have been an ArbCom case. By reducing the controversy surrounding their decision, the bureaucrats were simply serving, albeit in a way they do not need to, the community. Secondly, I am well aware that RfA is not a "50-50" process. However, in every phrasing of the Danny question I have seen, the poser of the question feels the need to write "zOMG over 100 opposers what were they thinking???!!!" as if 100 opposers (or more) is some magic number. I recall the large number of supporters simply to counter this line of reasoning. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 15:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said that the bureaucrats "took actions they believed would reduce the controversy in any way they could." You seem to be saying this approvingly. I didn't use the words "duty" or "concern," I said it was not the bureaucrat's job." Consider the thread of your argument; you are taking the decision to promote as a given: "If their extremely controversial decision (to promote Danny) had simply been done, as a normal RfA is closed, I think the very least that would have transpired would have been an ArbCom case." By "normal RfA" I am assuming you mean with minimal explanation. Now if that were done, and you believe it would at "the very least {...] result in an ArbCom case" doesn't this rhetoric appeal to you as indicating that the decision to promote was perhaps not the right one? BTW, I don't think ArbCom is an appropriate forum to second-guess community-chosen bureaucrats' good-faith decisions. The issue is not the 100+ opposers or the 200+ supporters; it is the totality of the interest in the nomination and the fact that consensus clearly was not reached. I understand and sympathize with the 'crats dilemma. The way I read it, it wasn't the passion and the sound and fury they needed to deal with, it was that they were in the position of not promoting a big Wikipedian. I wasn't there to put in my 50 cents, and I am not denigrating them in any way. But it is hard to deny the classic formula pig + chanel no. 5 = pig". -- Cecropia 17:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Voice-of-All 03:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

A. I think the essay does an excellent job of highlighting the concepts of consensus as understood on Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply

]

A. This is an excellent question, as it really gives me an opportunity to expand on what I said in my answer to question 2, where I discuss the two forces bureraucrats must consider when closing nominations. It would be in these sorts of cases where these forces must be examined even more carefully. In both of the hypothetical cases presented here, the first force - percentages of opinions - would maintain that the nominations would have the expected result. The nomination below the grey zone would be closed as "no consensus," and the nomination with more than 80% would be closed as successful. The application of the second force, however, is more complicated. In the nomination with over 80% support, the second force would actually serve to reinforce the percentages, whereas in the second nomination, the one below the grey zone, this second force would necesitate more careful consideration. (For the purposes of this question, I will assume that this second nomination has a relatively low support percentage, below what is often considered the discretionary range, but not completely outisde precedent. Say, 71%)

In the case of the grey zone RfA, reasoning could go either one of two ways. The first is that the candidate really is unpopular. This is the opposite standard as discussed directlt above, and should be considered in the same way. If the candidate has interacted sourly with the community, they are lacking one of the traits of successful admins, and this knowledge should be considered accordingly by the bureaucrat. If a certain user's nomination is making established contributors with a long history act uncharcteristically harsh, that is strong evidence of unsuitability. Making a large number of contributors think "I don't know, I can't find direct evidence, but this candidate makes me uncomfortable," is a warning bell a bureaucrat should heed. This should not, of course, be confused with oppose votes which are not only unnecesarily harsh, but may violate policy like

WP:POINT. The presence of a large number of these opposes should soften, but not remove, the bureaucrats reliance on the percentages. How would I close this nomination, to which I theoretically pegged the number 71%? In the first case, where established contributors reach for straws all over the place; no consensus, in my second case, where a large number of opposes may violate policy (letter or spirit - if you oppose someone you don't like for 1FA when you normally never would, that's violating WP:POINT in spirit, though perhaps not in letter), I would be at least tempted to close as successful, though without a concrete example, I cannot give a concrete answer here. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 01:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

A. Oh, that? That was back when the thought (I believed it then, though to a much greater extent) was that RfA was broken. The reason du jour for explaining this was that there was no way to de-admin people, so many users employed excessively high criteria when evaluating RfAs to protect against the promotion of unsuitable candidates. This was just a though experiment, trying to get the ball rolling on any proposal which could have broken the deadlock. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 01:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional (hypothetical) Question from Anonymous Dissident

10. – Hypothetical situation: An RFA is ready for closure. It has 71% support, and 29% oppose. You know the candidate, and both like them as a person, and believe they would make a good admin. All things considered, what would you do as a crat in this situation of RFA closure?

A: As a bureaucrat, I would consider this too much of a conflict of interest. I would support the nomination as a normal user, stating why I believe that the candidate is suitable. Since RfAs need not be closed exactly on time, I would then leave the nomination to be closed by a less involved bureaucrat. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 21:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• See RyanGerbil10's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• First RfB: Wikipedia: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)[reply]
2. Support. You will do well. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 23:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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^Talk 23:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   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)[reply]

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

   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)[reply]

   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^Talk 00:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Support. Trustworthy. Andre (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. No noticeable problems that I can see... --Dark Falls ^talk 00:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support I trust this user make the best decisions involving bureaucrat tasks. Captain panda 00:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Good fellow; see "neutral" section for further rationale gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 00:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. -- Y not? 00:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. Ryan should make a good 'crat. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support I trust this user. --Banana 01:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
12. Very strong support another. Acalamari 03:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^Hello 03:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support A trustworty user. --
    Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
15. Support Excellent answer to Q1.AKAF 07:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
17. Support. Per Walton. Yes, I know what section that's in.
    ^{Denny Crane.} 16:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
18. Support - I trust Ryan to be a good judge of consensus. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bragger! ;) SalaSkan 18:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

19. Support - good answers especially question 6.
    Addhoc 18:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
20. Support good answers to all questions! Politics rule 20:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Bureaucracy for everyone (almost)! Bucketsofg 00:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support, after considering the reasons given in the nomination. Agent 86 18:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Terence 05:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support strong answers, and like question 6 - it's nice to see a little sardonicism (as long as it's not bitter!) :) ck lostsword•T•C 16:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support I believe, from reviewing his work on the project and from personal experience, that this is an admin whom we can trust with the extra responsiblities of bureaucratship. The
    ^"talk" 20:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
26. Protesting against 6 pathetic oppose votes.
    Talk/_Contribs 04:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
27. I'm
    Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 08:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
28. Support, his participaton around here isn't great, true, but there's nothing that really turns me off about the candidate. Wizardman 14:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support. Appears to be a qualified candidate. Cla68 07:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support. Qualified user, who will do the job well. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 08:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support The so-called "Danny Question" is impossible to answer without rankling somebody. I thought Ryan's answers were thoughtful, especially so considering that he was being asked to second guess a situation in which he was not directly involved. Correct me if I am wrong, but even the >80% consensus level is not set in stone. RfA is not a vote, at least not officially and until it is, we should not hold that against the candidate. JodyB _talk 18:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support per above. We are way too overprotective of the b-crat tools. — Deckiller 21:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support the candidate seems qualified. DarthGriz98 23:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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^talk 08:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
3. Strong Oppose Per Walton. ~ Wikihermit 16:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose: As with Husond, near total lack of involvement at
   WT:RFA. Outside of comments related to a proposal he made on WT:RFA [1], there's been precious little involvement. I prefer seeing considerably more activity there to demonstrate understanding of community expectations of a bureaucrat and also to more fairly evaluate your potential as a bureaucrat. Almost nothing to go on here. I am also quite concerned about this comment made about evaluating RfAs for the betterment of the community. I applaud the willingness to ignore percentages. But, it is not up to bureaucrats to decide what is best for the project. It is up to the bureaucrats to evaluate consensus. If that were not the case, then RfA would be obsolete and the bureaucrats would become a board of approval for administrator candidates. You serve the community, not the other way around. --Durin 19:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   I agree with you that I haven't participated in WT:RFA, and it's mostly because I view it as an endless run-around. Very little actually gets forged or decided there, and I can assure you that even though I don't participate in the discussions, I do follow tham with great interest. As for the diff you pulled up, I don't think it's quite a fair representation. I can hold a position which requires me to disregard, even contradict, what I believe. I have closed TfDs for copyright templates and deleted all of the images straight away, even though I personally don't believe in most copyright at all. I'm simply not vocal about it. If we had a survey about copyright that I decided to participate in, I am sure I would express opinions in contradiction to what is required of administrators. However, as you say, I serve the community, so my personal beliefs are not necessarily important. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 01:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose per answers re RfA/Danny. User:Argyriou (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose per the Danny answer. Prodego ^talk 21:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Me too, I oppose per the Danny answer. I'm very alarmed by the tendencies I see towards the bureaucrat collective becoming, as Durin puts it, "a board of approval for administrator candidates," which would make nugatory all our efforts to argue and discuss in RfAs. Ryan, I appreciate that the community is so divided on this issue that you would probably have gotten some Oppose votes over any reply to the Danny question; but still, each of us can only say what we think. And what I think is that your platform would vest too much personal and collective power in the 'crats. And I also don't think reducing controversy should be the one overriding principle for promoting an RfA candidate, as your Danny comment seems to suggest here: "By judicious, I mean that the bureaucrats saw an unavoidable controversy and took actions they believed would reduce the controversy in any way they could" — by disobliging 118 opposers rather than disobliging 265 supporters. That view of controversy seems oversimplified (indeed, seems egregiously vote-counting!) to me, and the whole controversy-reduction priority worries me. In fact I would tentatively suggest one reason Cecropia has been the only 'crat promoted for over a year is precisely because he obviously is prepared to face controversy. Bishonen | talk 14:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

   Please see my latest response to Cecropia at Q#5 for why I think my words regarding "reduction of controversy" have been misinterpreted. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 15:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8. Oppose per my long standing reasoning and per many concerns above. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment User has opposed several other RfBs with his "long standing reasoning" without specifying what that reasoning is: [2]. Icemuon 16:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Reason has been dug up: [3] Icemuon 09:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9. Oppose, and I might as well just fess up and say it's due to the Danny question. You cannot simply ignore 110 opposes just because there are 250 supports, and say that there is no problem with that. RFA is a community based decision, not a bureaucrat based one. I am for a discretionary range (in close cases, it is natural to see if people are opining for good or frivolous reasons), but not for complete bureaucrat freedom, and that RFA was well outside the standards for promotion, especially when many of the reasons were directly related to the candidate's use of admin tools. I will join those saying that RyanGerbil is a good person, contributor and admin though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Please see my latest response to Cecropia at Q#5. for why I have trotted out the number of supporters in Danny's RfA. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 15:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose: Really quite disturbed by the responses to Q5; there are arguments to be made in favour of Danny's promotion (although I personally didn't, and don't, agree with it), but those are not they. David Mestel^(Talk) 21:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose: Answers put too much decision authority in the bureaucrat's role. Servanthood, not power, is the right approach. The 'crats are supposed to evaluate the decision the community has reached, with no consensus a very legitimate decision.
    GRBerry 21:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
12. Firm oppose The thoughts of Xoloz, David, (especially) GRBerry, and Walton, inter al., mirror mine (I continue to believe that a bureaucrat acts only to divine for what action a consensus lies and then to effect such action, irrespective of his personal views about the soundness of arguments expressed in discussions—except, of course, where there exist overriding policies to which the community have acceded and where those policies are plainly inconsistent with a discussion, in which case further input ought perhaps to be sought (there are, to be sure, no such policies or general understandings relative to requests for adminship, and I can't imagine that ever there will be)—and in no case in substitution of his views or those of certain others for those of the community writ large), and whilst I'd likely feel comfortable reposing in Ryan the trust to perform, consistent with policy and the consensus of the community as borne out in any discussions that might transpire, the relatively uncontroversial and oftentimes pro forma tasks associated with
    RfBA, for the reasons set forth by W.marsh here and much less eloquently tangentinally by me here, it has become necessary that, except in close or extreme cases, one base his/her RfB !vote principally on RfA promotion-related issues, as I do here. Joe 03:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
13. Reluctant oppose. A good administrator, but I cannot in good faith support an RfB candidate who would promote an admin candidate who didn't have the support of the community. 110 opposing !votes !=consensus to promote. Cecropia's observations ("consensus clearly was not reached") and Sjakkalle's mirror my own. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose per Bishonen. I have nothing bad to say about the candidate personally, but I have to oppose addition of more bureaucrats that seem to misunderstand the very meaning of consensus. Apart from the narrow meaning of "agreement", where we can discuss if the majority should give in to a substantial minority, consensus implies "consent". We cannot promote admins, or bureaucrats, for whom a large minority has not given consent to make decisions on their behalf. Zocky | picture popups 00:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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^{Conas tá tú?} 23:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   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)[reply]

   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^{Conas tá tú?} 00:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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^{Conas tá tú?} 00:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral I have a long standing 1-year term of service as an admin expectation for 'crat nominations. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral I feel unable to support as I haven't seen anything from him that leads me to think him bureaucrat material. But I won't oppose because I know he's a good contributor. Deb 19:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral Deb said it all...I like the user as an admin and an editor, and as such, will not oppose. But I don't truly see any definable use, nor need for 'crat tools. Jmlk17 20:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral I'm afraid I haven't seen enough to be able to support.-- danntm ^T _C 01:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.