Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RyanGerbil10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] RyanGerbil10

Final(38/8/8) Ended 03:10, 2006-07-26 (UTC)

RyanGerbil10 (talk · contribs) – Hello, everyone. I've been at Wikipedia for over 18 months now, and I've finally built up a substantial amount of edits. As is apparent from my edit history, I was inactive for most of 2005 and the first two months of 2006, due to an extremely demanding course schedule, combined with athletic practices. Although I was not an active editor during that time, I was an active reader, and participant in FAC. I continued to follow policy developments during my inactive period, albeit in a passive manner. However, I am pleased to say I do not foresee my schedule ever becoming so busy again, and I believe now is the time to request my adminship.

I've wished to become an administrator for some time now, so that I may help the various janitorial tasks which keep Wikipedia running, and running well. I feel I've made the necessary demonstrations of kindness, dedication, patience, and policy knowledge the position requires in its daily duties. I was going to wait longer to request adminship, but I've listened to debates that the number of admins is not keeping up with the number of new articles and users. Because of this, I decided to Be Bold and jump into the waters a bit early. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 02:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC) (Statement amended 18:53 UTC 19 July 2006)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I do indeed accept. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 03:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Support
  1. Support Naconkantari 03:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support Michael 03:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Edit conflict to First Support! User seems to be a good canidate, with good intentions, and over 2000 edits, which is fine by me.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. DarthVader 03:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support - nom statement and questions look good as do edits. Adminship is not about being on stage solo, it's about being part of a choir, a team. There is no I in we. -- Tawker 04:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support This Fire Burns Always 06:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support per nom. Nothing disagreeable here, and has easily enough experience (2000+ edits over 18 months is hardly insubstantial) to know what's what. RandyWang (raves/rants) 06:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support impressive good quality edits to a wide range of articles. But this on your userpage swayed it for me until I realized that specializing in something in Wikipedia is pointless. Exactly my ethos. -- Errant  talk(formerly tmorton166) 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support - seen him about the place being nice, civil, kind and useful. Give him the mop! —Celestianpower háblame 10:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 10:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support per Tawker and others. Eluchil404 11:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support his answer to Q1 mentions that he wants to deal with repeat offenders of cruft insertion, resolve disputes, and clear backlogs in AfD and CfD. I think that's a perfectly satisfactory answer. AdamBiswanger1 13:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support, more sysops willing to work behind the scenes also mean less backlogs and increased efficiency. - Mailer Diablo 15:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support, per Mailer diablo and Adambiswanger1. Behind-the-scenes admins are good. ctales **blah* 18:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support I good interactions with him, won't abuse the tools Jaranda wat's sup 18:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. I've seen him around on FAC, and he seems to be an intelligent and levelheaded guy with a solid grasp on the fundamentals of what we do here. Sure to make good use of the tools. --RobthTalk 19:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  18. 'Support - I think he would be a level-headed admin who wouldn't abuse the mop :). Fabricationary 21:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support - Good understanding of what it means to be an admin.Seivad 22:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  20. Weak support per Seivad, Fabricationary (who, I think, states quite well what ought to be the calculus over which candidates for adminship are adjudged), and Mailer Diablo, to name three. Joe 22:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    Support I feel the amount of edits is little compared to other RFA nominees but I have seen Ryan on other talk pages and he was civil and polite. His answers to the questions are excellent and he is ready. -ScotchMB 00:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    Withdraw my support vote after I read all the oppose comments and I agree more edits would be useful. -ScotchMB 00:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  21. Merovingian (T, C, @) 02:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support. Mostly Rainy 03:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  23. support, 18 months seems long enough. Reggae Sanderz 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    This editor is a suspected sock who has done nothing but make trouble and vote in RfAs and AfDs. See [1] and sock report. He's recently voted in three other RfA's as well.--Chaser T 05:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. Meets my standards, looks like a civil editor who won't abuse the tools. BryanG(talk) 05:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support 'No Big Deal'. I see no reason to beleive that the user would abuse the tools, nor do I see reason that the user doesen't grasp policy. Good luck. --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 08:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support A dedicated user. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support per all above, per answers to questions, and because there's nothing wrong with a passive admin. --AaronS 19:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support per above. Good luck! :-) 1ne 22:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support another multilingual user. Lectonar 12:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support. Excellent per above. --Terrancommander 04:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. Come on people lets get to the important stuff, whether the user can be trusted. Lets see, long time user, lots of great contributions, no significant screw ups, not even any people complaining significantly. It's clear by his editing track record that he can be trusted, and lacking any evidence that he cannot, he should be promoted. - Taxman Talk 04:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support Yay for anti-vandals! Imhungry talk to me here. 17:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support Alphachimp talk 00:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support Dedicated, friendly and good faith editor... should make a good admin. --W.marsh 01:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support, does lots of good work. Kusma (討論) 13:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support per all above. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support meets new standards. GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 20:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose with current statement the entire nom statement is about why he didn't do edits and doesnt mention why he wants to be an admin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caf3623 (talk • contribs) .
    Oppose for now per underexperience and weak answer to Q1. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    Withdrawing my opposition per careful examination of your history and per Taxman. Will not be supporting as you significantly fail my amorphous editcountitis standards. Good luck. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Crzrussian above. --Wisden17 10:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Crzrussian. You are still unexperienced but I will gladly support you if you request adminship again in a few more months. --Tuspm(C | @) 13:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Crzrussian and Caf3623. Roy A.A. 21:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per lack of experience. RyanGerbil, this kind of response just makes it harder for the admin closing the vote to figure things out. I have seen excellent contributions from you, and will support when you have more experience. Sandy 22:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    Here's an additional example of more experience needed: objections to FA candidates should be "actionable". "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored." Sandy 14:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    It's not considered unusual to make a vote at FAC that says while something needs to be improved, the objector is unsure of how to best improve it. I, and others, have made such votes in the past, such as here. Hope that helps, RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 17:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    While we all appreciate your enthusiasm at FAC Sandy, RyanGerbil10 has been participating at FAC for significantly longer than you have, so with all due respect, voting oppose based on lack of experience and using that as your backing is a little odd. Please consider the important issues. After a certain point volume of edits does not matter in determining if a user can be trusted. - Taxman Talk 04:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose You seem like a decent person who would make a good admin, but I feel you need to be able to tell us not about the watching, but about the doing - more hands on experience and interaction and you'll be fine. Tyrenius 22:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per lack of experience.--Aldux 02:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per the above. --HResearcher 13:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Neutral Seems quite passive for an admin candidate, real world activities notwithstanding. I would like to see more interaction with other editors and intervention beyond reverting vandals in the main article space before turning to support. A little more participation is all it takes.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral - going a little bit against my standards, I'm giving a neutral because although he failed At least 350 combined talk, user talk, and Wikipedia talk edits, he has a substantial number of Wikipedia space edits to show interaction with the community. However, his answer to question one seems to contradict itself. How can you take a more active role in dispute resolution with a mop, not a broadsword? —Mets501 (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. Only 54 main talk edits shows lack of direct article interaction. Maybe now that the course load isn't so heavy, the nominee can get a little more involved and reapply in a few months. Will definitely consider supporting then. Themindset 16:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry for the interruption. I did a bit of quick counting on my watchlist, and found that of the 67 articles on my watchlist, 20 have no talk pages, and and 32 have talk pages with less than 5 posts on them. It's not that I avoid them, it's just that the areas where I work are not heavily discussed. I hope this clairfies a few things, and thank you all for voting, RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 18:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    Article talk page experience is essential for being an admin, in my opinion. This is where the discussions, debates, and conflicts occur that are central to our mission here... creating an encyclopedia. Perhaps add some articles to your watchlist that are a little more active, participate in concensus building, resolve conflicts with users you don't agree with. These are all experiences that, if accumulated, will lead me to vote support on the next go-around. Themindset 19:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    I agree with that (but not the oppose) I would add any article you edit to your watchlist so you get to know about any contentious or very active ones. I have just pruned my list from 240 odd to 127 (removing all the pointlessly short ones i will never work on or the deleted ones etc.) and of those I regularly 'monitor' maybe 40. The point is that expanding your presence and influence base can help to build respect for you in community - especially important for an admin. -- Errant  talk(formerly tmorton166) 20:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    But... I did not oppose. Themindset 23:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    Umm Good point, well made.. :D -- Errant  talk(formerly tmorton166) 09:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. Very good article contributor (the stats are near perfect), but I don't see much motivation to be an admin or demonstration of policy knowledge or maintanence tasks. The answer to the questions don't seem to give me much confidence in that respect either.Voice-of-All 21:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral - I won't oppose but I can't support either. I'm wondering why he wants to take a 'more active role,' as an admin, in tasks/discussions in which he hasn't yet participated. In a few months, with more dialogue in the talk spaces, he will gain more and broader support including mine. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 23:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral - a few more talks will be better.--Jusjih 01:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral: Excellent period and editcount, but you're almost there. I suggest you aim for more namespace contribs, and eventually you'll get them all in a matter of time. So good luck on this until the next try. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral. I think a little extra experience would enable others to evaluate the candidate. --Ed (Edgar181) 12:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments

All edits.Voice-of-All 19:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user RyanGerbil10 (over the 2240 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 551 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 19hr (UTC) -- 19, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 5hr (UTC) -- 16, December, 2004
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 99.59% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 18.48 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 497 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 2240 edits shown on this page and last 11 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 2.59% (58)
Significant article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 11.47% (257)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 29.06% (651)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 82.86%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/updates): 11 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 672 | Average edits per page: 3.33 | Edits on top: 5.09%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 37.01% (829 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 36.96% (828 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 7.77% (174 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 15.04% (337 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 54.02% (1210) | Article talk: 2.41% (54)
User: 8.35% (187) | User talk: 7.81% (175)
Wikipedia: 25.63% (574) | Wikipedia talk: 0.31% (7)
Image: 0.71% (16)
Template: 0.36% (8)
Category: 0% (0)
Portal: 0.4% (9)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0% (0)

Username        RyanGerbil10
Total edits     2235
Distinct pages edited   672
Average edits/page      3.326
First edit      01:28, 16 December 2004
        
(main)  1210
Talk    54
User    187
User talk       175
Image   16
Template        8
Wikipedia       569
Wikipedia talk  7
Portal  9
Questions for the candidate

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 voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I do not see myself as an "in the limelight" admin. I would like to work mainly behind the scenes, straigtening up the things that maybe aren't of the highest priority or greatest visibility, but which still need doing. I won't be waging high war with the trolls and vandals, although I will clean up after them with dedication. To me, the symbol of an admin is indeed a mop, not a broadsword. One of the things I would like to do most with my admin powers is to stop, or more realistically, slow, the crufting of video game articles. Almost 90% of my reverts are reverting the insertion of cruft into video game articles. As a non-admin, I can do little, even to repeat offenders, except add warning templates and threaten people that I'll bring an admin in to block them. Although I seldom encounter terrible cruft editors (the majority of cruft comes from one-time, almost drive-by like anon edits), the recurring editors are a mess to clean up after and admin tools would be a welcome respite.
I would like to clear our backlogs, especially in terms of article deletions at WP:CSD. Although I have not personally participated in many AfDs, I have watched them, sometimes with amusement, for quite a while, and know how they work. Some remain open far too long, and I would quite like to close them. In addition to my editing, I also spend a great deal of time reading Wikipedia, and frequently encounter articles with open AfDs. By the time I find them, a consensus has usually been clearly reached, so I don't often vote, but when scanning the AfD page I often see many other pages with similarly decisive AfDs that can remain open for days.
I would also like to take a more active role in dispute resolution, and I feel that with admin authority, I would be able to take a more active role in fairly resolving conflicts. As a normal editor, I have little to contribute to many disputes. I can read about and understand them, but other than policy discussion on Wikipedia Talk pages, I find my ability to participate in them to be limited. As an admin, my first duty would be to encourage calm and rational discussion of the matter at hand, and then, after consideration, take any actions I deem necessary to resolve the conflict farily but firmly.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: My favorite contribution to Wikipedia is one of my German translations, Friedrichstadt (Berlin), which is a German Lesenswerter Artikel, the equivalent of an English Good Article. The tranlsation was difficult, and took me the better part of nine days, but I slogged through. I also have worked hard on keeping cruft out of articles related to the Pikmin series of video games, among other things.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A:I had a conflict with User:Xubelox over inclusion of certain information in the Captain Olimar article, but it was hardly intense. There were a few heated talk page messages, but little more. Other users haven't really stressed me at all in the past. I work in retail, and Wikipedia users are sorely mistaken if they think they have annoyed me in the past. Even the most stressful of my Wikipedia situations is peaceful compared to the Saturday rush in the shoe department. I don't foresee any problems in the future.

Optional question from Lar:

4.(one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of Category:Administrators_open_to_recall? What do you think of it? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in this category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of Category:Rouge admins? What do you think of it? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 13:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
A:I do agree with the Administrators available for recall category, and if confirmed, I would place myself there. Being an admin isn't like being granted diplomatic immunity, you can still do wrong even with the mop. For example, I could hit one of my cats with a mop. No one benefits from that. Seriously, though, I would have to quote "Wikipedia:What adminship is not" for this answer. "Every editor, from the newest registered account to the most experienced bureaucrat, has exactly the same standing here on Wikipedia." Because of that, if six editors truely thought my adminship needed to be reexamined by the Wikipedia community, I would march back to RfA the next time I logged on. For reference, I had heard of this category, but had not looked into it too deeply.
When it comes to rouge admins, I might add myself to the category in time. Seeing the names of the members of the category, it seems that these are people who have earned a reputation for flamboyant or extremely visible admin actions. As I have no desire, at least now, to become such an admin, I wouldn't add myself, although I am not opposed to the category's existence nor my eventual inclusion or non-inclusion in it.
The above adminship 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.