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

Much like Halle Berry accepting her Razzie in person, this was obviously a bad idea and a kick in the shorts that I probably needed. Oh well, I see y'all at TfD tomorrow. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final (3/6/0); Withdrawn by candidate at 06:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

RyanGerbil10 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - As the community seems to think it is a good idea to have all interested candidates run for Bureaucratship, I have decided that I would once again like to ask the community for this opportunity to serve it further. I have been an editor here since December 2004, back when AfD was VfD, there was no prod, and WP:AN was less than a week old. I have over 17,000 edits and over 3,500 logged administrative actions, which I have accumulated since becoming an admin in July 2006. I am very experienced in consensus and policy related discussions, having closed around 2,000 debates at WP:TFD. I humbly ask the community to review my contributions and consider my worth for this position of community trust. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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 and other related discussions. The criteria can be best stated as follows:

• Some in the community believe that promotion should definitely occur above 80% support, and possibly occur, at bureaucrat discretion, between 75% and 80% support.
• Others believe this discretionary range lies between 70% and 80%.

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

A.Borderline nominations must be weighed on many criteria, with considerable deference given to the support percentage. If the close could possibly be considered contentious, as closer I must be prepared to gively a concise, detailed, and preferably timely explanation of my reasoning.

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.Excepting one unfortunate incident where my account was used without my knowledge, I have been in a position of community trust (admin) for a long period of time with a record nearly beyond reproach. In addition to this, most of my admin experience comes from consensus-judging areas, such as WP:TFD, where I am the main closer of debates. In terms of sheer numbers, I have closed over 1,500 TfDs, which I feel is more than sufficient training to evaluate RfAs.

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. My edit statistics from the past months will reveal a pattern of participating in RfAs and the BN over time, sprinkled liberally among an otherwise copious and regular editing schedule.

• See RyanGerbil10's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• For convenience of participants: In my time zone, my bedtime is 7:00UTC. Tuesdays and Thursdays I will be inactive from then until 21:00UTC, other days I will be active from about 16:00UTC. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 04:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

1. I supported last time, and I still think RyanGerbil10 will make a great bureaucrat. Acalamari 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support will make a good crat.   jj137 (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Ronnotel (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am uncomfortable with a candidate who has admitted to making blanket RfA opposition, as he did here with the comment "I will oppose any candidate who has previously opposed RfAs stating that the only reason for their oppose is that the candidate has failed to show a need for the tools" (please let's not discuss the merits of the argument, as IMO it doesn't justify blanket opposition regardless). This is not a blanket oppose and I will be willing to strike/overlook it in presence of evidence of RyanGerbil10 supporting a candidate that the above statement refers to, or in another extraordinary circumstance. However, as I have seen neither, I am compelled to oppose. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 04:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   When I oppose for things such as this, it is because I believe that opposing for "not needing the tools" shows a lack of understanding of what adminship is (speaking as an admin). When users run for adminship who have frequently used this reasoning in the past I oppose them because I do not believe that they should become admins if they do not undership what adminship is. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 04:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose — Three nominations is an excellent indicator of power-hunger; furthermore, user is way too quick to assume bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmweber (talk • contribs)
3. Do not trust this user's judgment, I'm afraid. His comments at WT:RFA are some of the most disturbing I've ever read, such as saying that "I don't even read candidate's answers [in an RFA]" or openly admitting to lying to the questions in his own RFA. Well, if you lied then, why should we trust anything you say now? --JayHenry (talk) 05:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   What does my criteria and the way I passed my RfA have anything to do with my ability to determine consensus? That's what we're here for. Not to be confrontational, but none of the opposers have thus far pointed out any representative examples of poor judgement patterns nor any fault in my ability to properly communicate why I have undertaken a certain action. These are the two criteria which determine the success of a bureaucrat. And if you want a reaon you should trust me, since I passed my RfA I have made 80+% of all of my edits and 100% of my official administrative actions, all while faithfully following the spirit and letter of our policies. Back when I ran for adminship CAT:AOR was new, controversial, and the issue du jour. I didn't agree with it then and I still don't. But I stand by my decision to (otherwise tactfully) bypass a dramatic process I wanted no part of. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   As a bureaucrat you need to read the RFAs. You also need to tell the truth. You've indicated that you don't do either. I understand it's difficult to be honest and get anywhere in Wikipedia. I'm sure I'd never pass an RFA today. But the defense that expediency justifies lying is not acceptable to me. --JayHenry (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. I do not believe we should have more bureaucrats right now. Sadly, I do not see anything to indicate that I should disregard my opinion on number of crats. I do not, however, find any reason to believe you would make a particularly bad bureaucrat though. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Thinks that it was acceptable to block Kurt Webeer after a RFC had come to a clear consensus that that specific behavior by Kurt was acceptable. This proves that he lacks sound judgement regarding RFA and consensus about it, and should not be allowed to close them. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive108#User:Kmweber. GRBerry 05:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   In my comment I never mentioned RfA or whether or not I agreed with his opinion. I expressed my support that a user who knew his behavior, although technically not against policy, drove a significant portion of the community crazy, and I voiced my support that that sort of disruption should be stopped. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Lacks the necessary amount of good judgment necessary for the position. Mike R (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2008 (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.