Final (7/10/3); Ended 20:26 4 March 2007
RyanGerbil10 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - 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)
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:
Please keep criticism constructive and polite.
Discussion
Support
Oppose
Neutral
Final (7/10/3); Ended 20:26 4 March 2007
RyanGerbil10 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - 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)
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:
Please keep criticism constructive and polite.
Discussion
Support
Oppose
Neutral