Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RyanLupin


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

RyanLupin
''' (talk page) Final (10/19/4); Ended early 23:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

- This user seems like a good editor and a dedicated vandal fighter. He has accumulated over 2,000 edits. He expresses a desire to become an admin, and I believe that granting him adminship could give him an opportunity to help out further.--Avant Guard 20:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I accept and appreciate this nomination Ryan (talk/contribs) 21:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

RyanLupin's Statement
I do recall nominating myself for adminship a few months ago, however, after assessing the requirements and reading through all the wikipedia policies I decided that I really wasn't ready for an RfA and therefore changed my mind to save myself from the intimidated process of reading through over 100 or so opposes. It's been at least 4 months since that day and I believe now, after learning the various policies by heart that I can contribute to wikipedia still further with the aid of a few extra tools. Again, I'm deeply flattered by the nomination, it's something I wasn't expecting and I will now let everyone here, decide my fate...

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I've read the Administrators page time and time again and I believe I can contribute extensively to to following areas of work:
 * Tackling vandalism - I'm already a keen reverter of vandalism. However, the process will be a lot easier with a few extra tools so I can monitor the WP:AIV and ban reoccurring offenders.
 * I have a tendency to add pages that are frequently vandalized to my watchlist so I can monitor them and decide whether or not I should request page protection. Therefore, I believe I can also be of assistance in the protecting/unprotecting of pages.
 * Having tagged dozens of articles for speedy deletion in my time as a member, I believe I can also help out with actually carrying out the deletions therefore the monitoring of CAT:CSD will be on my to-do list. Similarly with monitoring the WP:AFD pages to finalise discussions and disputes listed there.
 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: To be perfectly honest with you, I don't believe I have a single 'best' contribution to Wikipedia in terms of a Wikiproject or a particular article I've taken a liking to, however, I am deeply proud with the work and effort I've put into tackling vandalism. Therefore, in answer to this question, my best contribution to Wikipedia is my stance against vandalism and my efforts in protecting the site from those who chose to deface our work. However, saying that, I will often click the 'random article' button and make the odd grammatical correction or make necessary expansions whether that includes adding references or restructuring the article completely. I will also monitor the new article page and make major editions to articles that are likely to gain a speedy tag. A recent example of this is my contributions to this article which started off as a small paragraph of text consisting of links that a new page patroller considered as being SPAM and tagged it accordingly. As you can see, the article has undergone a rigorous change.
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: I don't believe I have. Not off the top of my head. There have been times where a particular vandal hasn't liked the fact that I've reverted their desperate attempts for attention and have reverted my reversion but I've never participated in a full-on edit war with another user.


 * Optional question from User:Piotrus
 * 4: Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Why, or why not? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A: I would yes. If I ever was granted adminship (and I can see that my RfA is going no where at the moment) then I would happily step down if it was requested of me. I think it's only fair. Ryan (talk/contribs) 19:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Optional question from User:Justanother
 * 5: Since a number of editors are basing their oppose votes on this, I would like you to directly address Articles for deletion/Tv-links.co.uk. Do you still hold to your reasoning there or have you modified your position? Please explain your answer. --Justanother 15:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A: It's a shame I made that AfD the very same day I was also nominated for adminship because like you said, everyone is now basing their decision on that. To be honest, I don't really know what I was trying to prove in my rationale, reading back over it again just reminds me how silly it is to nominate articles for deletion that early in the morning. :P —— Ryan (talk/contribs) 09:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

General comments

 * See RyanLupin's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for RyanLupin:

''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/RyanLupin before commenting.''

Discussion

 * Note to opposers Note that edit counts mean absolutely nothing (Particulaly aimed at you, Bearian)-- Phoenix 15 (Talk) 19:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've re-read Arguments_to_avoid_in_adminship_discussions, and have to agree with you, partially. While it's true that edit count is a poor reason by itself, I'm just using it as a proxy that I can't see that the user understands enough about WP to be an admin yet.  I may change my mind with the discussion's progress. Bearian 20:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I also endorse this broader definition of edit count: User:Dlohcierekim/standards, i.e., "3,000 edits or equivalent service". Bearian 20:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, I agree that this isn't one of the best candidates we've had but I doubt he will abuse (or even misuse) the tools-- Phoenix 15 (Talk) 20:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Another set of standards I might endorse is here User:Lradrama/RfA_Criteria (note the 400 mainspace edits). Bearian 20:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also guys, I can take an 'oppose,' but a weak "I agree with Person X" (WP:AAAD) is just a lazy way out of increasing the oppose tally and making me feel even more indimidated. If you wish to oppose, heck you have every right to, but please explain your reasons. How else am I going to learn for possible future RfAs? Thanks Ryan (talk/contribs)

22:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I opposed per Speciate because his reason for opposing reflects what I think should be the consensus. If someone says 'Oppose per...' you might consider that opposer to be writing the exact same reason for emphasis and to demonstrate community support for that point of view. Avruch Talk 23:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Whilst I agree that "oppose per...." means you simply concur with the other opposers findings or reasoning, it is also important to remember that this is (in theory) a discussion. Certainly a failed RfA is also an opportunity to learn, and postive criticism can only help any candidate further in their work here. Pedro : Chat  15:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just as a matter of enquiry, is my RfA criteria causing problems? Is it something I shouldn't have? It's just that I've seen other users have them too and it answers a lot of queries about the varying standards various people have. If it is just going to cause more conflict I'll get rid of it.  Lra drama 16:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you should keep it out there. Your standards are quite reasonable, and less than what I'd previously considered.  400 Mainspace edits is a good (if random) number to ascertain a level of trust. Bearian 17:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at it again, here's my combination of the two (not exactly what Lradrama suggests) - significant edits, at least 400 in Mainspace (but not all vandalism-reverters) because it shows you know how to build an encyclopedia. Bearian 17:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support - Looks to be a level-headed person who is active against Vandalism. Will be an asset to Wikipedia as an Administrator.  Trevor   "Tinkleheimer"   Haworth  22:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - An excellent candidate for this position. He is always dedicated to ensuring that vandals don't get away with their havoc. Articulate and friendly, but knows how to take control of a situation. He has contributed greatly to Wikipedia, correcting and creating many articles. Wikipedia would benefit greatly from  Ryan  becoming an Admin. Angel caboodle 00:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Appears to be a good vandal fighter with almost 40 edits to AIV  Tiddly - Tom  10:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) SupportAdminship is no big deal, unlikely to abuse tools-- Phoenix 15 (Talk) 19:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) I see no compelling reason to oppose. ^demon[omg plz]  22:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) It appears that this request for adminship won't succeed. Well, I hope that won't discourage you from running again. I suggest you listen to the advice your opposers are giving, and try again in three or so months time. Good luck. Acalamari 23:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Weak Support - I concur with Acalamari, I'd suggest a withdraw. But please don't be discouraged, from what I've seen all you need is another few months, and you'll be a perfect candidate. Rudget Contributions 13:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - Ryan is a good guy, he has helped me a lot in the past and I trust him with the tools.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support not only his work against vandalism but his enthusiasm to help wikipedians is notable. Don't base all his contributions to wikipedia on the 'loopy AfD.' An excellent candidate for adminship Tazangel 11:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Given Village_pump_%28proposals%29, we need every admin we can get.  Neil   ☎  10:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Don't think he'll abuse the tools, and willing to help out at WP:CSD and WP:AIV. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC).

Oppose
 * Oppose Insufficient number of edits, especially Mainspace. Bearian 01:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How many edits are you looking for? 2417 seems more than enough. Acalamari 01:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What is sufficient? Could you qualify it? M er cury    02:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Like many users here, I share the idea that about 3,000 edits are the preferred number to see evidence of trust. I generally support candidates with more than this, or close enough; I don't suffer from acute editcountitis. I endorse the essay at User:Keegan/On_administrators. Bearian 15:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. For me (not speaking for anyone else) edit count is merely an objective measure of how much work has been done, so that I can see whether to trust a certain user whom I've not encountered yet at WP. It does not mean that I don't trust a user; it merely means that I do not have enough information to figure it out. Bearian 20:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So you looked through all 3,000 edits for evidence you could trust the user, and that wasn't enough? I disbelieve.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  06:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, of course I did not look through all 2400 edits, but to be honest, only scanned the last 100 made at that time. For the sake of fairness, I took a look through his contributions again just now at  and found a great start with 2500+ total edits, 900+ in mainspace, but lots of those are reverts and talk; his biggest contribution to any article is only 29 edits, which shows relative inexperience at encyclopedia-building.  Actually, the nom at AfD mentioned elsewhere at this RfA is really "no big deal". I'm still a neutral. Bearian 15:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose, for his loopy nomination of Tv-links.co.uk for deletion. His interpretations need to be read to be believed. Speciate 06:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - No-where near enough experience anywhere yet, although you do seem to be heading in the right direction. Give it a few more months and your RfA should look much better.  Lra drama 10:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Speciate. That AfD is nuts. Avruch Talk 13:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose The nomination of Tv.links.co.uk mentioned above is very strange, indeed. Criminals are not deleted from the encyclopedia for the reason of being criminal.  The encyclopedia has a duty to convey accurately and fairly all notable things, be they great achievements or crimes.  Wikipedia is not Pollyanna.  That nomination (from yesterday, by the way) severely calls into question candidate's understanding of key policies. Xoloz 13:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose as per Speciate and Xoloz. Ronnotel 14:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose oppose per the afd. That's scary. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 14:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose The lack of experience here is a major concern. Although you are active against vandalism, your interpretation on that AfD page is a major concern. Just learn from your mistakes and try again after a few months. In the meantime, do not be discourage over this RFA. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 15:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per Speciate. Sorry. Majoreditor 17:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose Not enough depth in experience - almost 65% of your total non-deleted edits are Twinkle warnings, reversions, tagging, and reporting. Twinkle warnings comprise almost 80% of your user talk edits. Don't get me wrong, Twinkle is a wonderful tool but I'd really need to see more evidence of discussion with other users, more significant (non-automated) editing, and more edits to Wikipedia space other than AIV and RFPP to show knowledge of policy other than WP:VAND and WP:SPAM. Mr.  Z- man  22:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) No per above. NHRHS2010  talk  01:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose Inconsistent judgement.  east . 718  at 02:58, 10/25/2007
 * 12) Oppose. I know this user only from the aforementioned AfD, but after seeing that he was up for adminship, I felt I had to express my feelings. That AfD shows some basic misunderstandings of policy and the AfD process, and I can not support the adminship of such a user. SorryGuy 07:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. Low level of policy knowledge as shown by a rather curious AFD nomination mentioned above, and further shown by a low number of Wikipedia namespace edits. Agree also with Mr. Z-Man. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) OpposeAs per Zman and User has been active only since June and very active in September.But feel you can try after a few months and you will have my support.Good Luck.Pharaoh of the Wizards 15:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose because of Tv-links.co.uk nomination you seems not to be ready. I am requesting some months to you gain experience. Good luck. Carlosguitar 17:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose not so much for the deletion itslef, but rather for the rationale. Shows that you need some more time to grow and understand policy. Wizardman  20:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) No -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Weak Oppose Answers show some lack of experience, and I do not believe you are ready. Try again soon!  Pat Politics rule!  03:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose and other obvious inexperience with policy that I don't need to link to -- Pump  me  up  14:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose Not quite there in terms of experience, but you seem to be well on your way. Jmlk  1  7  06:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Per the coolest AfD nom ever. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 09:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't think that the nom was based purely on the idea that Wikipedia condones illegal activity by hosting articles like that. The nominator also mentioned WP:SPAM, which leads me to believe his overall concern was that the article lacked notability or read like an advertisement. I doubt that if we give this user admin tools we'll have to worry about him deleting Adolf Hitler or Jeffrey Dahmer.--Avant Guard 15:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral to avoid pile on I won't oppose as there are a lot of positive aspects to your contributions, and your vandal fighting is very much valued. However the AFD nomination bought up by Speciate is, well, scary. Sorry, an dplease do not be put off of down hearted. Pedro :  Chat  15:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral, a change from oppose, after a re-read of some of the user's work, for example, at Joseph McManners. Close enough to 3,000 todal, with over 900 mainspace, might do it for me.  No evidence he'll abuse the tools, but I'd more evidence to support. Bearian 20:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. See also above discussion about edit counts, how low is good, and why they matter. Bearian 17:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral per Pedro, and I think that putting some more edits behind you will make that afd become a less glaring issue. Carlossuarez46 20:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral with moral support Ryan, don't let this get you down. Please consider entering the admin coaching program. I do not think that this AfD thing is any big deal or anything that you have to "live down", it simply shows that you could use some good coaching. Good luck to you! --Justanother 12:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.