Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/IronGargoyle

IronGargoyle

Voice your opinion (talk page) (36/9/4); scheduled to end 23:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

IronGargoyle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – Well, here goes nothing. IronGargoyle is a long-term user with nearly four years of editing experience, as he (I'm assuming; apologies if not) made his first contributions in early 2006; since October of that same year, following a unanimous RfA, he has served the English Wikipedia as a sysop. The candidate is generally a low-profile admin who has avoided major disputes to the best of my knowledge, and he has accumulated 15,000 edits according to Soxred's editcounter. IronGargoyle has completed almost 4,000 logged admin actions, which are predominantly deletions.

These numbers are actually quite low. Still, their judgment and demeanor is certainly admirable. In particular, this editor is quite active at DRV, closing various sorts of expired discussions. In many cases, these threads are not exactly straight-forward, although he has examined and considered dozens of difficult situations, and always explains his reasoning in-depth and with plentiful logic in all but the most simple scenarios. His excellent judgment, as well as a tendency to know how, where, and when to apply administrative discretion, leads me to believe that he is more than suitable to be an effective bureaucrat. Looking to Soxred's tool once again, the candidate has made dozens of thoughtful comments on discussions relating to RfA, which confirms my suspicion that he would be an excellent 'crat.

And with that, I present IronGargoyle for community consideration, hoping you'll agree with my evaluation. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Withdraw. I want to thank all of those who commented here; both the supporters and opposers with kind and constructive words. Although it's certainly nice to see so much support and admiration from editors I respect greatly, I can see that this is definitely swinging in the direction of WP:NOTNOW. I'm not nearly popular or well-known enough on-wiki to be a WP:100 candidate, and that is looking to be about what I will need right now (assuming almost no more opposition). As a statistician, I know when my bell-shaped boat is sinking fast. Thank you particularly to Julian for the kind nomination. Some might say I'm ending this too early, but I have much better things to do for the next 5 days than stress over questions for an RfB that I feel will likely fail. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

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. I have, and there are a number of points that I want to address here. Firstly, I will paint—in broad strokes—what the community norms are now in terms of numbers. "Discretion" in closing RfAs typically falls somewhere around 70 and 75% support (support over support+oppose) in actual practice. There have been exceptions to that, but they are rare. RfA is not a vote obviously—it is a discussion—but it is worth mentioning for a moment why it is not a vote. We hear the expression "a discussion is not a vote", and the first thing we normally think of is the idea of "closing on the strength of policy and arguments". This is valid, but it is only one half of the picture. The other half is the necessary (and healthy) interplay between participants in the discussion. Voters don't interact with one another. You read discussant X's comment, and this may change your own !vote accordingly. Discussant Z may then read your comment, agree (or disagree), and then !vote consistently (or contrarily). This complex interplay is normal, and it is the most important "discussion" aspect of RfA. It is important to see the whole picture of the discussion through the facet of this interplay. I'm not saying the strength of arguments are not important, but there are fewer clear policies about what "we should look for in and admin" versus "what we should look for in an article" (i.e. WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS). Yes, community norms may give less weight to arguments like "Too many administrators currently", but these arguments are the exception and not the rule.

I apologize for the statistical terms I may throw about here. MBisanz's RfB attracted a minor degree of flack for his discussion of a normal distribution in the discretionary range. As a statistician, these terms have inherent appeal to me. I use these points to illustrate my reasoning, however, not because I use normal distributions to close discussions (I don't). The reason why RfA acts more like a vote is because you have a larger sample of the population. Most RfAs today have well over 50 participants. The larger your sample, the less sampling error there will be. An XfD with 4 participants is much more likely to be adversely impacted by a single policy-inconsistent !vote, than is an RfA with 80 participants. This doesn't change the fact that it still is not a vote. Although we don't usually have 80 editors at each RfA spouting off stupid oppose reasons (most editors on both sides of any debate are clueful), There can still be those few exceptions where considering the strength of argument can make a difference. The need for vigilance to recognize these rare cases are why the bureaucrat job can't be occupied by a robot or well-trained monkey.

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

A. I would most likely discuss this with other bureaucrats. I don't like the term "'crat-chat" (it sounds silly), but if that's the term you would like to use, so be it. :) I don't think this discussion needs to be particularly large or long in most cases. The first check would be for independent agreement. I would always try to avoid groupthink, however, and would make a point of playing an informed "devil's advocate" in any bureaucrats' discussion (as I do internally at deletion review), so that both sides of a controversial issues would be thoroughly examined.

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. I feel as though I've always behaved in a fair manner in my nearly four years on Wikipedia (more than three as an administrator). As Julian points out, I have more than 15,000 live edits (16,000 counting deleted). Although this is a small number compared with many admins today (16k still seems like a huge number to me), I have used automated tools only seldom (although I am the bot-op of User:GargoyleBot). I have substantial experience in closing some of the most contentious discussions on Wikipedia—namely those at Deletion Review. I find these discussions to be fascinating to break down and determine consensus, but this means that I spend much research and energy for that one "discussion-close" edit. In the past years I have never been at the center of any substantial controversies—save in the role as a neutral adjudicator of controversial XfDs and DRVs. I have also been in a position of trust as an m:OTRS volunteer. I enjoy analyzing discussions, and I wouldn't be requesting bureaucratship if I didn't think I would relish the task. In other words, it has nothing to do with the "power" or "prestige" of the position (those quotes are important I think).

As with any discussion closer, I have received both praise and criticism for my closes at times. I think what is more telling, however, is that I have always been open, friendly, and communicative about my closes to those criticizing or commenting on them them. I cannot think of any instance where I have been uncivil to an individual questioning a close. Although there is occasional criticism, my closes have often been praised by those who !voted on the ultimately "losing" side. I feel as though I am deliberative and detailed in my closes when needed—but yet I do not overstep my bounds as a neutral determiner of consensus, nor do I make comments just to hear myself talk. I join a discussion when I feel as though I have something meaningful to contribute and have done the necessary research to back up my assertions. Finally, I feel as though I'm noncontroversial and non-factional enough so that I could close most RfAs without any conflict of interest or bias.

4. Question from Ray^Talk: Why do you want to be a bureaucrat? Which areas do you want to work in, and why do you want to work in them?

A. I think should first raise here why I went from thinking "oh, that would be interesting and fun to close RfAs" to actually running for RfB. I would imagine that many admins wonder at one point or another if they should run the gauntlet of RfB, just like a senator minor file clerk wonders if he or she might be the president mid-level file clerk some day. ;) The task is daunting, and one is never a completely objective observer of one's own qualifications (how much RfA participation is too little? When does one develop unhealthy signs of RfA obsession?). Over my tenure as an admin, I have had three separate administrators—all of whom I respect very much—voice their support for my running for bureaucratship. I know there are some comments below regarding Julian's nomination (a nomination I appreciate immensely), but this was not just him. Backslash Forwardslash and Jc37 have also supported this idea at various times, and as I have overturned deletions of theirs in the past I took these comments with considerable weight. I would not have run if I did not have their outside views of my qualifications and support.

Now, to actually answer your question: I enjoy the process of breaking down complex discussions and closing them, so my primary focus would be RfA. Now, RfA can obviously become a bit of a drama-fest at times; I think my eschewing of cabals (which don't exist anyway) and factionalism would make me ideally suited to be a neutral party in the eyes of the community and thus hopefully avoid drama. Certainly I'd help out at changing username, usurpations (I have been lurking at both for several months) and WP:BOTRFA. In all these cases I would defer to a more experienced 'crat if I smelled even the slightest amount of controversy in my first several months (this applies to RfA too). Furthermore, I would always stay strict to the recommendations of the bot approvals group because I am not a programmer, and because I believe in the separation of powers that was raised in MBisanz's RfB.

Optional questions from S Marshall:

5. In your statement above, you refer to cabals and then deny their existence. Do you recognise that there are "pressure groups" of editors who tend to focus on single issues and !vote en bloc, and if so, do you see this as a matter that could influence your closures?

A. I certainly recognize that "pressure groups" do exist. One incident that comes to mind was a recent Arbcom case involving an Eastern European mailing list. Now, are these cabals as common or as virulent as many people suggest? I don't think so. I see my reference to WP:TINC as a commentary on the importance of assuming good faith and not be constantly paranoid about cabals. While I'm sure there has been some "cabal influence" in a handful of the thousands of RfAs that have run in the past, I think "cabal activity" (such that there is) is much more prevalent in the mainspace than at RfA. One thing that is important to keep in mind about pressure groups is that there is very often a counter-pressure group that checks the raw influence of one particular pressure group (think inclusionists vs. deletionists for example). The danger emerges, however, when these groups organize and coordinate off-wiki. This is why I've always been a big fan of transparency, and am not a particular fan of off-wiki communication (there are exceptions to be made for private and sensitive issues, but these should be limited, involve trusted users, and incorporate some form of supervision/oversight). Evidence of substantial off-wiki communication and coordination for vote-stacking purposes should be investigated vigorously and dealt with per WP:CANVASS. A bureaucrat needs firm evidence though. If you just go on suspicion and guesswork it allows for the bureaucrat's own biases to seep in. Good faith !votes might very well be struck. This should obviously be avoided.

A much more common way for editors to divide themselves is along the deletionism/inclusionism spectrum (or any disputed RfA topic). I would be extremely hesitant as a 'crat to summarily dismiss, or lower the weight of any opinion or !vote along these lines. The vast majority of Wikipedians—even those on extreme ends of this (or another) spectrum—are good faith editors of Wikipedia. We are all members of the community, and if a candidate does not have the trust of a large segment of the community, they shouldn't have the tools. Keep in mind too that good old normal distribution. Extremist views are necessarily few. They may lead to a few odd votes, but they shouldn't generally change outcomes.

6. Please examine this RFA. I raised a question, and there was some discussion over whether it was appropriate (and, in retrospect, I'm not sure myself either; I'm looking for analysis, not validation). What is your view? Should it have been disregarded?

A. I obviously had a strong opinion on the MZMcBride RfA, and I wouldn't have come within 500 miles of closing that, but I'll still try to answer your question as neutrally as I can. There are a number of different ways in which I can assess the "inappropriateness" of this question (or the lack thereof). My first preference for any RfA question is that it be relevant to the candidate that you are asking it of. Your question does pass this particular test. Although I dislike many questions at RfA, and find them unhelpful, I feel very strongly that only a few questions are truly inappropriate to ask (but many are unhelpful). These inappropriate questions would be the same sort of questions that you wouldn't ask at a job interview, for example. They would be questions that have nothing to do with the candidate's qualifications or ability to use the tools. I think your question was relevant, and tough questions do get asked in tough RfAs. I don't think that question opened up the floodgates to quid pro quo and limited adminship bargains that some seemed to fear; slippery slopes are seldom as slippery as people say they are.

Do I think the question was helpful, though? No.

The question created needless drama, which was one factor in making it an unhelpful question (that and the fact that campaign pledges are basically unenforceable at the moment). That said, it's not the job of the bureaucrats to be the drama/question police of RfA. It is the responsibility of every RfA participant to have good sense/clue, remain civil, not pick fights, and occasionally sit down for some tea. The job of crats is to sift through the "crime scene" at the end of the week. If MZMcBride's answer (which was fairly good I think) didn't allow you to trust him with the tools, then that's perfectly valid (and your !vote based on that question should not have been disregarded). If other editors see the question/response and also didn't trust him with the tools, this is also valid. The more !voters a question is useful for, the more useful that question becomes. The question may have been useful to you personally, but I don't see that it was useful to the RfA as a whole (in other words, how much does it aid discussion?). Hopefully I've answered your questions. If you need clarification, let me know. They were a struggle, and I'm not entirely sure I addressed everything.

Those questions were supposed to be a struggle! You're running for bureaucrat, so I wanted to ask testing questions about thought processes and analysis skills around assessment of consensus. Yes, you've addressed everything.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from seresin—

7. What closing action would you take on these RfXs. Why.

• ^demon 3 63%:
• Gracenotes 74%:
• DHMO 3 (considering only the conversation at this point) 79%:
• Everyking 5 65%:
• Riana's RfB 86%:

8. To what degree may/must bureaucrats disregard particular rationales/votes on RfXs? Which of these do you believe the community allows/expects bureaucrats to disregard or assign considerably less weight when closing an RfX?

A: I am answering this question first because I will reference it in my actual "closes" above. I do not believe the bureaucrat should use a whole lot of discretion in terms of disregarding particular rationales or !votes. There is discretion, yes—and it is very important discretion—but it is necessarily limited in scope. I reference this principle in my opening questions by stating that there is little clear policy in terms of what is an appropriate policy-based !voting rationale (as compared to deletion discussions). Now, there is certainly an essay on arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. This essay makes valid points, but I think it more fundamentally speaks to what contributes to a good discussion in terms of participant interplay (see my commentary on the two characteristics of a discussion above), and less so in how much strength of arguments are weighted following the discussion. Many of the rationales provided in that essay are still examples of good faith concerns. They may not help a smooth discussion progress, but they could still indicate a lack of community trust if they are sufficiently echoed.

Now, that said, there are occasionally certain rationales which have been rejected by the community to an extent that they do hold little weight. Because they are necessarily rare, they seldom have an impact other than to inflame discussion and cause drama surrounding the commenter. I'm thinking about things like "too many admins currently". A previous RfB candidate brought up the fact that this could have some slight increase in validity if, for example, the editor was interested in working in DYK alone. Other principles I find to apply are that comments about the candidate and candidate trust are generally more important than questions about the process (which is a contrast to DRV). By and large though, it is better just to ignore such fringe comments (not contributing to drama). In closer cases, such thoroughly rejected rationales will be closely scrutinized, assessed on any possible merits, and most likely rejected.

9. We have had recent resysoppings of administrators who request the flag back after having relinquished the flag. Some were granted by bureaucrats who were unaware, of varying degrees of flagrancy, of the history of the administrator's flag. After the last one, it seems a policy may have been adopted of waiting 24 hours after such a request has been made on BN before granting the request (see this for a current example). The questions: can administrators who may not have resigned "under a cloud" be denied automatic re-flagging based on concerns regarding the administrator raised at the time of asking? If so, what sort of concerns must they be, and how will you deal with any conflicting opinions of the bureaucracy regarding the validity of these concerns? Also, what action would you take if an administrator made a request to you personally (i.e. not posting at BN)?

A: I am going to answer this question more briefly, but please prompt me if you would like a more detailed rationale. I don't see any problem with short waits for re-sysopping in common practice. This is helpful because it can allow communication between 'crats to occur and the situation to be assessed. Do I think it should be mandated and written into policy? I don't know. It feels a bit like instruction creep to me, but I don't honestly have strong feelings either way in the matter. There is also the broader issue of re-sysopping admins who weren't under a cloud of suspicion when they resigned—but are now "controversial". My general rule of thumb would be the presence of any "active proceedings" concerning the behavior of the former admin in question. Arbitration, requests for comments, and significant noticeboard threads would give me pause to re-sysop somebody (conflict with Jimbo is always a tricky thing because of his past community role as judge, jury, and executioner, but it seems as though the issue has been resolved amicably). I wouldn't hesitate to re-sysop just because of someone's lack of "popularity level" on the project though. That wouldn't be fair. If another 'crat had already decided not to re-sysop, I would respect this decision. I wouldn't throw a fit, however, if I turned somebody down and another 'crat re-flagged them. As always, communication and discussion between bureaucrats is key to resolve any disagreements. I respect all the 'crats and I feel as though I could have a sane, frank, and level-headed discussion with any of them. I would probably post a note on WP:BN regarding any re-sysop, unless there was some significant privacy concern (in which case I would discuss the issue over the e-mail list).

General comments

• Links for IronGargoyle: IronGargoyle (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for IronGargoyle can be found here.
• Promote IronGargoyle (bureaucrats only)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

Support

1. Shark bait ooo ha ha! iMatthew ^talk at 00:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Support. Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
3. As nom. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Support per above. Good luck! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. IronGargoyle's answers to the questions and his work at DRV and elsewhere point to a level-headed, fair-minded and clueful contributor - these are ideal characteristics in a potential bureaucrat. Rje (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Support. No concerns, level-headed, fabulous edits and contribs. Props to IronGargoyle!  IShadowed  ✰  03:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
7. IronGargoyle's name is a familiar one, granted I still know very little about him. I trust his nominator's judgment in most cases, and seeing the credentials IronGargoyle brings to the table (experience with DRV means experience with closing contentious discussions) suggests he has the desirable background for the role. His answers to the questions instill me with confidence that he will be a contemplative bureaucrat. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Support no concerns, level headed and fair, will make a good crat. RP459 (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
9. Support. I think your general anonymity within RFA and T:RFA are good indicators of your saneness, and I can only presume that if you do decide to close RFAs, you'll actually be very good at it because of the neutrality I see in your edits in other content- and decision- based areas. Refreshingly non-drama ridden candidate. Lack of participation in !voting =/= lack of clue. Keeper | 76 04:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
10. Support - Per this being the first power of ten. ;) --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
11. Support - I'm familiar with you, I've always seen you as a voice of reason and sanity, and your answers so far are very well done. -- Atama頭 06:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
12. Sure, why not. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
13. Support - seems fine, as bureaucrat candidates tend to be. Keeper76 says it well with respect to the comparative lack of recent !votes. Euryalus (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
14. Support - trustworthy admin. PhilKnight (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
15. Support Sensible, balanced, clueful, calm. Perfect bureaucrat tendancies. GedUK  10:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
16. I move away from the mic to breathe in -- Cirt (talk) 12:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
17. Sharp guy and I am consistently impressed and pleased with what I see from this user in discussions. Would be remiss not to support. Shereth 14:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
18. Support. Iron Gargoyle appears to be a very calm, neutral, level headed editor who shows he is quite capable of closing potentially some of the most controversial and heated discussions this project sees and, from my own very limited interaction with him, I would say he is equally capable of providing a decent rationale for his decisions, which, in my opinion, is just as, if not more, important. HJMitchell You rang? 15:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
19. Support IronGargoyle contributions have always impressed me and I have confidence he will make a fine bureaucrat. Davewild (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
20. Support He has been a great admin and will be a great 'crat. Angryapathy (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
21. Support Candidate is more than suitable for the role. Crafty (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
22. Support A levelheaded admin, he would make a good crat. The sock that should not be (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
23. Support, seems fine. --Aqwis (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
24. Support Looks good to me. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
25. Support Thoughtful and analytic. Sole Soul (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
26. Support. Through my past interactions with the candidate I sense a calm and wise administrator, and his contributions indicate profound knowledge of various WP areas. Let me comment on the debated point: IMO, the candidate does have significant experience with RFAs. I disagree that his recent activity here is either insufficient or is a substantial argument to oppose. I would argue that it is only great to have a bureaucrat with such a wide spectrum of areas of expertise. Materialscientist (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
27. Strongly support. Will be an excellent bureaucrat. AGK 00:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
28. Support -- Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
29. Support - We need someone like you to be a bureaucrat. Smithers (Talk) 02:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
30. Support – a consistently fine administrator; see no compelling reason to oppose. —what a crazy random happenstance 03:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
31. Support. Though I'm not sure if I've seen IronGargoyle around (I don't think that's a particularly strong reason for oppose; perhaps I'm just not paying enough attention) I am impressed by their contributions and answers thus far. Unless you seriously bone up the impending questions on RfA cloture you've got my support. Valley2city^‽ 03:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
32. Support per nom. upstateNYer 04:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
33. —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
34. No reason not to A8UDI 13:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
35. Support, because I have heard of him. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
36. Support Question answers show a great mix of commitment to Wikipedia, intelligence, ability to detach and analyze, and communicate. Ray^Talk 14:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
37. Support I can trust him. Despite the experience concerns, seeing the answers to the questions, I'm convinced he knows what he's getting into. Timmeh 21:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Little participation in RfA's (83 total by my count in nearly 4 years on the project, and only a handful in the past year). I appreciate the comments made about good judgment elsewhere (particularly DRV), but I would like to see more participation in RfA for a candidate for bureaucrat. Thanks. Correct me if my count is wrong, please, as I would be happy to reconsider -- Samir 09:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

   Soxred93's RfA stats for IronGargoyle.--chaser (talk) 10:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

   What you said seems correct. However is that serious enough to oppose? - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

   I think so. Practically the role of a bureaucrat is to assess RfA consensus. I find it very difficult to support someone looking to close RfA's when they have not participated significantly in RfA's to date. As with others, I concur that the candidate's work on the wiki has been stellar (extremely impressive) and my oppose !vote is not meant to be a negative comment on the candidate's work here at all. My suggestion would be a focus on RfA participation for several weeks before proceeding with an RfB. Thanks -- Samir 17:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose Juliancolton has been over-doing it with nominations lately, and this one seems forced. Nominator's proposition to nominate suggested that the candidate is very active in RfA, which I do not believe to be true. Also, candidate's contributions have tailed off considerably over the last year. Keepscases (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

   I think what Julian was trying to imply was that IronGargoyle has made insightful comments at WT:RFA, showing understanding and helpfulness of the project. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

   Please review the candidate's actions rather than the nominator's. FWIW, I've nominated nine users this year for RfA/B, or roughly one every month. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

   I have found Julian to be a superior admin in every way but why is he an issue? - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

   I really do not feel that Juliancolton's "over doing it" with nominations is relevant or indeed accurate - let alone a reason to oppose IronGargoyle's request; however the concern over RFA participation is perfectly legitimate in this respect and should be treated so. Pedro :  Chat  22:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

   I feel this is leaning toward WP:ATTACK. You are opposing because of the nominator and you are totally throwing him under the bus as well. Juliancolton is a good admin. After all, his RfA passed with only 154 supports....... Smithers (Talk) 02:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

   No, that isn't a logical argument to make. Mentioning his RfA is just avoiding it, and describing what's possibly perceived as a fact is not an attack at all. Keepscases' opposes aren't usually sound, but this may be a legitimate concern, and the candidate wasn't opposed just because of the nom. Whether JC is a good admin or not has no bearing at all, finally, the number of nominations was the topic. -- Mentifisto 05:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

   Guys, this isn't about me. Focus on the candidate, please. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose I have high standards for RfB - a top notch, well-known admin. Everything that I've seen has been fine - this is not a criticism for work done so far. I need to see more of it to get my support. Flying under the radar and having a more modest number of edits isn't the recipe for a good 'crat in my opinion. There is not much need for a great number of 'crats, so we can afford to be picky. I would comment differently if this were an RfA. Sorry! Royalbroil 00:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose I have never heard of IronGargoyle, and at least having heard of an editor is a prerequisite for my support (or more correctly, lack of opposition) at RfB. Prodego ^talk 01:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

   LOL! This is the best oppose ever! Crotchety Old Man (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

   I'm sorry, but I have to ask... what the hell kind of oppose is this? Opposing a candidate because you've never heard of them before? If I were in your position, I would just not vote at all, instead of opposing someone because I didn't know of their existence... The thing that should not be 01:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

   Indeed. That does seem like a very frivolous reason to oppose. Shouldn't we be !voting based on the candidate's contributions and how we think he will use the bureaucrat tools, not whether or not he is well-known? Timmeh 01:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

   If this RfB fails, will you support IronGargoyle if he runs again? You won't be able to say you've never heard of him next time. -- Atama頭 01:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

   I only support RfBs if I strongly support the candidate, otherwise, I oppose. That's the way I do things, its the way I have always done things. On RfAs, if I don't know the candidate, I don't vote. On RfBs, I will always vote, but oppose unless I believe the candidate will be a good bureaucrat. I am not certain IronGargoyle will be, because I have not interacted with him enough to make that judgement. Thus I oppose. Prodego ^talk 01:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

   There are 47,386,306 users on Wikipedia. Just because you don't know that person, you are opposing. What are the odds of you knowing that person? It strongly confuses me and is certainly confusing others. Smithers (Talk) 02:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

   I can see where he's coming from since there are roughly 100,000 active editors, and maybe 1,000 of us who actually give a crap about these things. Still, I believe that is a crappy reason to oppose since you could easily familarize yourself with this editor. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not trying to trash a POV here ... if an admin has over 4000 admin-type processes, and you've never heard of them, that's probably a good sign that they're doing a good job, and staying out of trouble! Whenever an RfA or RfB is posted, a !voters' job is to investigate the candidate's edits, and !vote based on that. Someone may have heard of me, but until they see the edits they don't actually know me. Personally, I've never heard of IronGargoyle - and that leads me to good things - makes me do my job as a !voter to know why I've never heard of them. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

   I am surprised that this is being considered a frivolous oppose. Other recent RfBs have failed solely because the nominees hadn't had enough involvement in RfA. For common visitors at WT:RFA, this is an analogous argument. Dekimasuよ! 14:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose per Samir for now - I may reassess after reading his answers to the optional questions. Good luck! ~ Riana ⁂ 12:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Weak Oppose. Despite it often being unpopular to oppose RFBs, I'm going to have to on this one -- per inexperience. I don't usually throw numbers around like crazy in my comments, but as the candidate is a statistician, I feel it appropriate. As per your answer to Q1, you'd be working pretty much exclusively with closing RFAs. According to the aforementioned tool, you have edited exactly 90 RFAs (with 15 in this calendar year). Taking a look at your contributions to WT:RFA, you have edited it 50 times. Half of those were in the last 11 days and 41 of 50 were within the last two months (Sept 17 - Nov 17). I will now step away from the numbers. I took a sampling of your comments on WT:RFA and on specific RFAs, and they do indeed indicate civility and clue. However, I would like to see civility and clue demonstrated in those areas for longer than a couple of months. Certainly I am aware that you've been around for nearly five years. But you were editing in places that would be indicative to me of a good editor and admin, but not indicative of a good bureaucrat. Now, I'm not saying you wouldn't be a good bureaucrat. I just can't tell for sure with the information I have. Useight (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Per Us8 I have no doubt that Iron is on the right track and has the potential to be a 'crat down the road, but I too like to see more experience in the areas where 'crats work.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

   Sorry, what's "US8"...? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

   It's shorthand for "Useight", Sk8terboi. ;) Crafty (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

8. Oppose per Royalbroil, who stated it very well. Jonathunder (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
9. The only valid oppose I have seen so far is the lack of RfA participation, which doesn't bother me. What does is the rationales for his comments; I did a smattering of checks and found lots of "per XX" and in my opinion generally shallow rationales. I don't think that makes him the right person to judge RFA outcomes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Unless my brain is getting creaky (distinct possibility), I don't see in your RfA vote record more than a couple of handfuls of votes from this year, so I'm going to have to wait for the inevitable "tell us how you'd close" questions to get a better idea where your head is. I'm leaning support, partly out of sympathy for anyone willing to do RfB, but mostly since you've got good judgment and I'm pretty happy with your voting rationales. - Dank (push to talk) 03:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Per Dank; additionally, I've become a bit more uncomfortable with our tendencies to add bit after bit (OTRS, checkuser, oversight, etc.) to the same people, rather than spreading things around evenly. It's great that you work with OTRS and DRV. Will your ability to assist there be reduced by taking on bureaucrat duties? If the answer is yes, it's hard to see that as a net positive. OTRS and DRV are more important ways to help Wikipedia, in my humble opinion. Dekimasuよ! 05:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

   To answer your question, no—I don't think my DRV contributions will be reduced. The DRV workload seems to be significantly less than it was a couple of years ago (although why that is, I'm not sure). My IRL commitments are becoming steadier and less variable. Past variability in these commitments has been a cause of editing slow-downs in the past, so with a more even workload I only see my net commitment to the project increasing at the moment. As for OTRS, I grab a few tickets here and there, but replying to tickets all day would burn me out (it is not nearly as interesting as closing discussions), and I know when to limit myself. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 06:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

   Then I'll lean towards support. Thanks for the thoughtful response. I'll still wait for someone to put up some of the standard "how would you close X, Y, and Z" questions. Dekimasuよ! 00:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

3. Not a lot at RfA to inform me of how this user might treat an RFA as a bureaucrat. Majorly talk 17:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Per Dank, but decidedly not per Dekimatsu, as "bit collecting" is a ridiculous notion; we should grant our trusted editors any and all bits we as a community deem them capable and fit to wield. Concerns about RfA participation; candidate obviously shows exceptional judgment and level-headedness, but I'd like to see evident knowledge of the current climate of RfA. So, waiting on answers to RfA-related questions for now. GlassCobra 02:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)