Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RyanLupin 2


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

RyanLupin
(32/28/4); Ended 21:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Candidate has withdrawn. Closed by weburiedoursecretsinthegarden

- I present to you RyanLupin for your consideration. I first encountered Ryan when I saw his name at the list of admin coach requests, and I agreed to coach him. After thoroughly reviewing his last 500 contributions, I saw conscientious and well-thought-out edits to the main admin areas, including AfD, AIV, CSD, and RPP. I reviewed his admin coach request again, and in his summary, he said he was concerned about how long he would block certain users or IPs for different offences. After several unguided test exercises, Ryan was spot on with his decision. Now for the admin related areas. As I said before, Ryan has participated in all admin related areas. In CSD, he has tagged numerous articles, and I could not find one that was incorrectly tagged. When an article was deleted, he tagged the redirect for deletion. That article was recreated, and he went back and reverted the tags that were present. Furthermore, he has shown his ability to work with CSDs; this shows an effort to build an article, tagged for CSD, by adding sources and removing any POV. With AfD, he participates with arguments based with a clear understanding of policy, and not the mundane per nom or per above. He has also closed AfDs correctly, and labelled his closures with "non-admin closure" on the page, and in the edit summary.

Ryan uses the huggle tool, and has made several automated edits with that. However, looking through his automated contributions, they are correct, and I didn't notice any evidence of trigger-happy reverting. Through his work with Huggle, he has nominated several articles at RPP, and several users at AIV. In all cases, the reports were correct, showing evidence that he would not be trigger-happy as an admin. Furthermore, his contributions show good communication, and an effort to build the encyclopedia. This is backed up by his concerted effort to get Canterbury to GA status, and Bishop Auckland General Hospital and Joseph McManners to an encyclopaedic status. As well as being active in three WikiProjects, he is a polite, helpful and civil editor. In short, I believe that RyanLupin is an asset to the Wikipedia community, and an even more effective asset with administrator tools. I hope the community find themselves in agreement with this. PeterSymonds (talk)  21:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept I want to thank PeterSymonds for his time in coaching me ——RyanLupin • (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I would like to concentrate my work on areas I'm already familiar with.
 * WP:AfD and WP:CSD - I've nominated countless articles for speedy deletion so there's an area I feel I can work. Frequenting the CAT:CSD page would be on my list of priorities. I've also participated in AfD discussions where I currently perform non-admin closures. With the tools, I'd like to further my contributions there to actually carrying out deletions rather than only closing 'keeps.' I'm familiar with deletion polices so I feel I could make just decisions and use my discretion to either delete or keep an article.
 * WP:AIV - I've made almost 300 reports to AIV so that's another area I'd like offer my services to.
 * WP:RFP - I've requested that many articles receive a protection, so here is another area I can work
 * WP:RFR - Having used the rollback tool since January, I think I can determine whether or not a user would use it appropriately.
 * WP:AN and WP:ANI I have both these noticeboards on my watchlist and have occasionally offered my opinions on subjects brought up so I would also like to use the tools to help resolve disputes bought up there.
 * WP:ACC - I'm an active volunteer creating accounts for users. With sysop rights, I'd be able to assist in the frequent backlog of requests that require the attention of an administrator.
 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I'll say this now, I'm not a fantastic article writer. I cannot sit and write a featured article standard piece of work. I submitted Canterbury for GA review a few weeks ago after spending all morning finding refs and rigorously enhancing it (you can see my diff here). Unfortunately, the GA reviewer placed it on hold and it was User:Epbr123 who managed to get the article its good article status. But I was chuffed with my edits and that is definitely added to my list of greatest contributions. Also, I've spent some time working on Herne Bay, Kent which is my home town. This is a featured article, however my edits to this article only involve minor formatting changes and restructuring. I've spent a great deal of time on Joseph McManners, who is a friend of mine; you'll see this article is the article I've contributed the most to. The rest of my contributions involve fixing refs and other minor tasks, which AWB assists me with. I will often click the Random Article page and see if I can enhance it in any way. Similarly with new pages, I despise when new page patrollers immediately tag an article for a speedy when it evidently has potential, so I will often try my best to improve the article rather than see it tagged. An example of this is Bishop Auckland General Hospital, which started out as this (speedy tagged by a new page patroller). In my opinion, to an extent, members who slap a speedy tag straight away onto new articles are more disruptive than vandals. I'm also active in 3 wikiprojects: WikiProject Kent, WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Wikify.
 * 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've had my fair share of conflicts (all can be viewed on my talk pages) but most, if not all, were vandals who have asked why their edits were reverted, or someone who has just seen their page deleted because I speedy tagged it. I've never engaged in any edit wars, and whenever I've become involved in conflicts, I have remained civil and cool, resolving it in an appropriate manner.


 * Additional questions from giggy
 * 4. Can you discuss Articles for deletion/Tv-links.co.uk please. —giggy 04:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A: This wacky nomination was one of the reasons my last RfA failed. It shows a genuine misinterpretation of policy. Since then I have familiarised myself with policy and I hope my nominations, discussions and non-admin closures made since then can convince you of this. A lot can change in 8 months.


 * 5 What are your thoughts on your comments here (and here) in relation to User:JzG/Wikipedia:Wonks. —giggy 07:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A:Sorry, giggy, I'm not sure I understand what you want me to say. The user used rollback to revert a NPOV edit so I left them a note on their talk page about rollback being used for vandalism only. What's that got to do with policy and process wonks?


 * Additional questions from Finalnight - Totally optional and failure to respond will not be construed as evidence against candidate.
 * 6 I notice that your edit count shows some fairly large oscillations from month to month. Will this continue to occur in the future? The point behind my question is that I am concerned that you might drop down to <100 edits a month again after becoming a syop which would make this whole RfA excercise non-constructive for the community.--Finalnight (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A: I had limited access to a computer between November 2008 and April 2008 and I had a wikibreak tag on my page to alert people of this (diff)


 * 7 I noticed that you removed content from your user talk archives after archival. While editing your own talk page is allowed but discouraged, I am concerned that you edited an archive page 2 weeks after the archival period ended. This could mislead users who would generally assume that an archived page is a complete record of the discussions from the period being archived. I was wondering why this was done. See diffs. Thanks.--Finalnight (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A: I have no idea, I remember removing the vandalproof acceptance message because the program didn't work on my computer but as for the removal of the last two sections, I don't know, sorry. Anyhow, I've restored everything ——RyanLupin • (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2008 (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 discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/RyanLupin before commenting.''

Discussion

 * Offering the candidate my services (for what they're worth) in helping him better understand our content policies, since they have come up as an issue here. If, after withdrawing (well, I suggest you withdraw), you'd like this, please leave me a note on my talk page. —Giggy 02:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support As nom. PeterSymonds (talk)  22:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Strongest support possible. Through his edits, proper usage of tools, advice and helping hand, and his overwhelming polite and friendly personality, I believe he'd be a fine addition to the Admins of the 'pedia. - k|e|n|g  -  t  |  c  - 22:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Great user: I'm the administrator who granted RyanLupin rollback, and he's been great with that as far as I know. He's improved greatly since his last RfA, and I think he'll make a fine administrator. Acalamari 22:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support A run through recent contributions turned up nothing but good stuff, all the concerns in the last RfA seem to be long-gone. ~ mazca  t 23:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Switched to neutral. ~  mazca  t 20:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I'm glad to support. You look to be a fine editor whose recent contributions cause me to expect you to be a fine admin.  Hilarious old AfDs and RfAs are of no concern to me.  &hArr; &int;Æ S   dt  @ 00:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support.Strong editor all around and has the experience for the job.Gears Of War  00:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support  Weak support learning towards neutral RyanLupin shows that he is responsible enough to handle the tools, and that he knows what he will be doing. His contributions show that he can go further from what he already does as a non-admin and he can do certain related things with the tools, which shows he wouldn't misuse them. I trust that RyanLupin will be a fine admin. Nothing wrong here. Good luck. ;) -- RyRy5  (talk ) 00:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * From what has come up in the oppose section, I am a bit concerned how an RfA candidate would do a copyright violation and almost everything else that came up. Ryan shows great experience, but I may go to neutral on this. Sorry. -- RyRy5 (talk ) 21:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I've been impressed with what I've seen from Ryan. I don't think there's much of a COI problem with the Joseph McManners article, as it seems neutral and verifiable enough. Epbr123 (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Now where was it I saw you... oh, right, everywhere. ;P · AndonicO Engage. 00:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support: Despite recent minor disagreements, I have to support this user. Excellent contributor, and I have no objections.  - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak Support with nearly 300 AIV reports the user demonstrates a definite need for the tools and while I have not reviewed his contributions the outpouring of support here already suggests such a search is unneeded. -IcewedgЁ (ťalķ) 00:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to weak support after seeing answer to Q5, totally missed the point there. -IcewedgЁ (ťalķ) 01:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Honest answer to question 2. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. An amazing editor with tons of experience. This guy knows what he's doing and would be a great admin. Useight (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - Demonstrates decent judgment, has a life, communicates well, good track record. Looks like administrative qualities to me. Tiptoety  talk 01:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Per Useight and Tip. Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 02:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Changed to Oppose. Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 15:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support With such a completely inappropriate webcam whore picture, I would be remiss to stand in the way of such undeniable brilliance. Also, a competent, mostly level-headed editor (hey, nobody's perfect) who will clearly be an asset to the project. <font face="Georgia"><font color="#000000">L'Aqùatique <font color="#838B8B">[<font face="Monotype Corsiva"><font color="#838B8B">review  ]  02:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Support I've seen Ryan around, and before this I thought he was an admin. Leonard( Bloom ) 04:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Support Indeed Leonard is right. Ryan Lupin conducts himself like an admin and certainly does the work. Good luck!:D-- Xp54321 (<font color="FF8C00">Hello! • <font color="FF8C00">Contribs ) 04:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support: Has the experience and has excellent edit summary usage. Also I like how this user conducts himself. I like how the user was honest for Q2. Overall, I think this user will make a fine admin.  <font color=#ff0000 face="arial">Orfen  <font color=#FF0000 face="arial"> T • <font color=#000000 face="arial">C 05:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) 'Strong SupportI'v seen ryan round too much recently. He is generally a really good guy  ·Add§hore·  <sup style="color:blue;">T alk /<sub style="color:blue;">C ont 06:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) 'Strong support'I have visited his Userpage a few times, and generally seen him around on my Watchlist. I think it would be silly not to give him Admin powers. Good luck. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 08:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support: A worthy candidate, he has clearly confessed to article writing not being his strong point so the McManners problem isn't too bad. His work elsewhere will counter this <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:pink">Angel  T 09:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support most definitely. Civil, and is a great aid at ACC.  <font color=#666666>weburiedoursecretsinthegarden  10:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Appears to be a fine candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support hard-worker; mistakes in the past, yes, but nothing tells me he won't improve or be responsible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishnava (talk • contribs) 15:07, 28 June 2008
 * 11) Support Chimeric Glider (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Cool, composed, and disinterested. All very good traits in an admin. --<font face="Viner Hand ITC" color="LightSteelBlue">La<font face="Viner Hand ITC" color="SteelBlue">Pianista! 17:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Strong Support Very active user, very mature, will do great as an admin. <font face="Segoe script"><font color="#ff0000">D <font color="#ff6600">u <font color="#009900">s <font color="#0000ff">t <font color="#6600cc">i SPEAK!! 17:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Support  Antonio Lopez  (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. Geez, I think I looked at every damn diff for this candidate. May was certainly an active month. Anyway, the only opposition that concerns me is the POV article editing, and I really don't think that will color Ryan's judgment as an admin - not to mention that he straight up confessed that article writing is not his forte. It also seems that a lot of the diffs causing opposition were from quite awhile ago, and none of the civility diffs trouble me at all. Dorftrottel was completely out of line with his edit summaries and Ryan wasn't exactly Miss Manners when informing Dorf; big deal. I don't see any evidence of him biting the newbies or really being at all disruptive to the project. How this diff was a "dealbreaker" for an opposer below is somewhat eye-opening - is this how we're judging admin candidates? Anyway, bottom line is that I feel Ryan would be a net positive to Wikipedia. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  |  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  18:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Support — appears to be quite clueful. participating in admin coaching shows willingness to learn and take direction from those who are more experienced. –<font face="Verdana"> xeno cidic ( talk ) 18:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Because the question we should be focusing here is "can this user be trusted with the tools?" Ryan passes with flying colors. Thingg <sup style="color:#33ff00;">&#8853; <sup style="color:#ff0033;">&#8855;  20:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. He can be trusted, as I can see it. - grubber (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Support.  I'm not so worried about RyanL becoming an admin.  He'll learn quick and has a head start because of ADCO.  Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Support An examination of his edit hist. for the month shows nothing that would concern me. He has good judgement, linke when he did here. He kept a cool head when I did so and apporpriately warned me. I know some people might say that "That user has a vandalism history per and  here, but I assure you people who might say that, those were isolated incidents and they won't regularily appear on my talk page.  DA   PIE EATER   REVIEW ME  02:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Strong Support: I was always puzzled as to why this user isn't already an admin! ......<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000"> Dendodge  .. Talk Contribs 09:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose. Am not convinced either of the candidate's level of participatory maturity, nor of the breadth of WP project interest. The COI is not a deal-breaker but IMO generally adds to my feeling that the candidate's interests and efforts involve a considerable quantity of enthusiasm and effort directed towards too few areas. Plutonium27 (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose &mdash; RFA-game-coachee. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 03:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to repeat once more that I dislike RfA coaching, too. It really makes it look like people are treating adminship as a goal that can and indeed should be attained through training rather than through experience and a priori (no pun intended) suitability of temper, intelligence and attitude. Sorry, but for everything RfA is and is not, I hope it will never become a test / game for which people can prepare systematically. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You supported me - a strong support - and I went through months of admin coaching with two coaches. Just FYI :-) <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  |  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  19:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Be glad I didn't notice. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good thing you're thoroughly vetting the candidates. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  |  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  20:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm almost never doing that. It's very clear in most cases whether the candidate is suitable or not. Also, I don't oppose everyone who participates in coaching. But it does raise the question as to the candidate's view of adminship. In your case, I'd still have supported for general cluefulness and a lack of other concerns. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't usually respond to opposers, but the only reason he wanted admin coaching was because he could study up on block lengths. The coaching was started just a few days ago: he did fine; spot on, in fact. There's a difference between using admin coaching as a tool to get through RfA, and using it to brush up on knowledge in certain admin areas. Just my 2p. PeterSymonds (talk)  20:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I wouldn't necessarily oppose because of "COI" but I see things like "Within days of his debut album release, McManners' talent rocketed into the classical music charts", "opposite the likes of Simon Pegg", etc, the whole thing just has a terrible promotional tone to it. I'm going to go clean it up right now, in fact. Naerii 07:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm also a bit concerned that you've used three fair use images of him. A bit OTT for such a short article. Naerii 07:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Naerii has hit the nail right on the head for me. <font style="color:white;background:#4682b4;font-family:sans-serif;"> Asenine   08:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose changed from neutral following Naerii's remarks, which are expressed in the way I was thinking. George The Dragon (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, this diff shows yet more peacock terms - "Bishop Aukland (sic) General Hospital is a small but very modern NHS district general hospital"? Added to the Deborah McManners and Joseph McManners articles, I'm starting to have concerns. Peacock terms, in my view, tend to make Wikipedia look less serious than we all want it to be, and I would expect an admin to be preventing their addition. George The Dragon (talk) 09:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Doesn't assume good faith. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have any diffs? The only time I've ever spoken to you was when I left that message on your talk page about being a dick for these (1, 2) edits. So is this personal revenge? Obviously you have the right to oppose but I just wanted to clarify ——RyanLupin • (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you prefer to call it that. It's the only encounter I've had with you. But yes, you calling me a dick and a 'spiteful guy' and the fact that you see nothing wrong with people updating live scores makes me doubt your suitability for the role. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ryan has completely lost my Support due to this. He handled that completely wrong. America69 (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Celebrate 'Oliver!' created by Ryan on 8 July 2007 which is  a cut and paste copyright violation of a  Western daily Press Article "Oliver's Army" published 15 December 2005.  Evidence can be seen via (free) registration here.  <font face="Verdana" color="#FF6600"> nancy  (talk) 10:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have now deleted the offending article as a copyvio but cached version still available via Google for those who want to verify.<font face="Verdana" color="#FF6600"> nancy (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) —Giggy 11:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Nancy (will happily reassess in light of new information). Daniel (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I'm particularly not comfortable with the McManners business, the use of fair use images in a bio about one of your own friends and someone you could presumably obtain a free image of, and I'm left feeling like I wouldn't trust you to act appropriately as an administrator with BLPs when you have failed to do so as an editor. Sarah 12:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Oppose Per Nancy and Daniel. I would like to add that I am now going to storng oppose because of the way he responded to Everyme. The way he responded here clearly shows that he is NOT ready to have the mop. This worries me to where I am having a trust issue now. America69 (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Giggy. It doesn't bother me at all that you use "peacock terms" when you write (which seems kind of irrelevant anyway) but the copy-vio did it for me. Either you don't know policy (which is bad for admins) or you're an idiot (which is bad for admins).-- Koji †  Dude  (C) 13:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Kojidude puts it the way I see it. America69 (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) per most of above For the future, would like to see candidate rewrite the existing articles to remove the promotional tone and/or create/expand other articles that are neutral in tone, well sourced, and substantive. Preferably, candidate should write in areas without a personal connection and out of his  comfort zone. (Switch from neutral on reflection)  Dloh  cierekim  14:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose: Both in Ryan's editing style and in the copyvio, I read a lack of the judgement and experience necessary for the admin role. Over half of Ryan's total edits occurred in May 2008. With learning on Ryan's part and evidence of consistent, and balanced, contributions, he might re-apply in, say, six months. Sunray (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose- Changed from support above per recent diffs. Editing skills are sorely lacking, copyvio is troublesome. Per giggy. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 15:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) No. Lack of maturity, COI, and especially his response to Dorftrottel in this very RfA. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify, originally, COI was the only thing that worried me, and it wasn't all that much in my opinion. But then Naerii pointed out the promotional language, I read the response to Dorftrottel, and I found this comment, which was the deal breaker for me. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per COI issues, copyvio issues and per the diff above from Nousernamesleft, which clearly shows maturity issues. RMHED (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose'. You're a good user from what I've seen, but Giggy's diff and other comments really make me want to not give you the tools. Wizardman  18:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I'm sorry, but the problems with your friend's page, especially the fact that you didn't see them, shows a blind spot that makes it impossible for me to support you at this time. Start becoming more mindful of your contributions, and that blind spot will fade. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak Oppose. Sorry, due to the information that was recently brought to light (i.e., COI and copyvio), changing to oppose. Useight (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - lots of worrying evidence brought up in recent times. Not good in terms of policy knowledge. Please don't become too dependant on Huggle, in terms of RfA, it can be a killer. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif"> Lra drama 21:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason he shouldn't use Huggle is because in terms of RfA, it can be a killer ? Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Huggle = an automated tool, creating literally thousands of edits (all automatic, not manually engineered with thought). Unfortunately, people seem to become fully dependant on that tool these days. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif"> Lra drama 21:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Great job perpetuating a ridiculous oppose reason here. Is Ryan fully dependent on it? No. Then why even bring it up? Sheesh. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  |  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  21:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the only reason for my oppose. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif"> Lra drama 21:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And I didn't say it was. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  |  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  21:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The main reason for Ryan's sudden vast increase of edits in recent months, is due to the aquisition of the automated Huggle tool. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif"> Lra drama 21:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If anyone else disagrees with me, do not comment here. I am not repeating myself. I have discussed it with Tanthalas39 on his talkpage, and my answer is there. Either read that or talk to me on my talkpage. My watchlist is long enough without trying to follow the discussion on this particular RfA page. Thanks, <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif"> Lra drama 22:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - your response to Everyme was appalling, and not something I would like to see in an administrator. That response and the concerns brought up by Nancy, Giggy, Nousernamesleft, Naerii and others tell me that you are not ready for the tools. -- Chetblong ( talk ) 01:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Giggy. Copyvio issue is a great concern to me. - Mailer Diablo 03:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per most of above. D=  &lt;3  Tinkleheimer   TALK!!  04:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose for a few reasons. The first and most pressing is the copyvio mentioned by giggy. That's enough already. Then I saw the way he handled the Everyme thing &mdash; the irony of accusing somebody of being a "dick" for incivility seems lost on him. A minor thing that wouldn't be a dealbreaker is the issue of a conflict of interest. Finally, I get, from reading his comments, that he doesn't really understand policy. I am certain that he knows policy like the back of his hand, but that's exactly his problem &mdash; I get the impression that he would mindlessly enforce rote-learned rules and regulations without any concrete understanding of why they're enforced, or when they need to be enforced and when they need to be ignored. For instance, giving somebody a "warning" because they "violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL" shows a knowledge of policy, but leaving a personal note saying that he seems to be creating more heat than light shows an understanding of policy. A good administrator should be able to change people's behaviour without referencing policy or placing blocks, and I am certain that this prospective administrator does not understand this. &mdash; Werdna talk 08:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention, participating in admin coaching reinforces my last concern from above. &mdash; Werdna talk 12:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Werdna. Although I can't listen to you, I really don't like the tone in answers to #4 and #5. Rudget   ( logs ) 15:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I am concerned by the non-neutral edits. [However admin coaching should be encouraged.] Axl (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Per Giggy --  A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 19:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose: You don't seem to be putting in effort to answer questions, and are only providing minimal answers with the scent of defensiveness.  Seevral times, you've chosen only to answer part of the question, instead of fully answering. You need to demonstrate skills appropriate to WP:ANI before I'd trust you with such a responsibility. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * <S>Neutral</S> for now. Good editor, but I'm having trouble squaring the number of edits to Joseph McManners, who you describe as a <S>close</S> friend, with WP:COI George The Dragon (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, this edit worries me. It appears the action has been taken unilaterally, and if the information really was sensitive enough to remove, surely it should have been sent to oversight? And suggesting "He does ues a semi acoustic Yamaha guitar as I've seen it" on a talk page is a slight worry George The Dragon (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I did see those. However, the first edit was made in September, and the second in May last year. Ryan's matured a lot since then, and has demonstrated his familiarity with policy. PeterSymonds (talk)  00:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral I can't oppose, but yet I can't support either mainly towards George the Dragon. Also per this[this edit [[User:America69|America69]] (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral I'll have no problem supporting you when George The Dragon's concern is straightened out, but until then, I will have to remain neutral. From what it appears, you do indeed have a conflict of interest with the subject of the aformentioned article. -- Mizu onna sango15 / Discuss 01:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral leaning towards oppose Whilst Ryan is generally a good editor with an apparent grasp of policy, it seems he feels that guidelines and policies are for everyone else and do not apply to him. As well as the Joseph McManners example already raised, I found a problem on the very first article I reviewed for this RFA - Deborah McManners - which was created containing Amazon linkspam, granted the creation was in September 2007 but Ryan was actively editing the article as recently as 8th June 2008 and still did not address the issue - despite having no problem removing linkspam added by others (and warning them for it)   . Some might say that this is a trivial example and that the world won't end if there is an Amazon link on Wikipedia - and they would be right - but it does indicate a partiality and lack of even-handedness that I find difficult to square with the attributes that I consider are needed to be a good administrator. When this RFA passes, which it will, Ryan must take on board that when you are an administrator you leave all you personal baggage at the door and he must apply the same rules & decision making processes to every article regardless of whether it is about his friend's mum or is a topic he has never even heard of before. <font face="Verdana" color="#FF6600"> nancy  (talk) 07:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Deborah McManners is another overtly promotional article too. Thanks for pointing that out, another thing to go clean up. Naerii 08:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Waiting on more questions and answers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral For the future, would like to see candidate rewrite the existing articles to remove the promotional tone and/or create/expand other articles that are neutral in tone, well sourced, and substantive. Preferably, candidate should write in areas without a personal connection and out of his  comfort zone.   Dloh  cierekim  14:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - switched from support since the COI stuff came to light; that page about your friend is overly promotional and I don't think it sets much of an example to anyone. Rewrite it and/or just get away from that topic altogether, and I'd happily support in future as otherwise you seem good. ~ mazca  t 20:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral Good work at AIV and unlikely to deliberately abuse the mop, which is why I will not oppose, but I am more concerned that - after a failed RfA which concentrated on low edit count - that half of the non-deleted contribs are for the month preceding this candidature. I see no breadth of experience in dealing with the aspects of admin work that isn't vandal related. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm really sorry, but some of the issues raised above, especially the copyvio issue, worry me greatly. Admins need to know policy, and the above issues make me question how much you know them. Please read up on policy, and follow it, and if you submit another request I will happily support. --cremepuff222 (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The 'copyvio' article was created a year ago, you don't think 12 months is enough time to read up on policy? ——RyanLupin • (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A fair point - the time lag is something I considered before bringing the copyvio issue to this debate in the first place. However, the creation of the copyvio is just the start as you then knowingly allowed it to remain on Wikipedia.  You may not have known about copyright policy when you created it, but the second you were aware of the policy you should have revisited the article and eliminated the copyvio.  I would AGF and presume that you had just forgotten Celebrate 'Oliver!''s  existence but for the fact that you link to the article quite prominently from your user page which indicates that as recently as yesterday you either did not know about WP:COPYVIO or you didn't think it applied to you. Sorry. <font face="Verdana" color="#FF6600"> nancy  (talk) 06:13, 29 June 2008 (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.