Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryan Vesey

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

Ryan Vesey

Final (117/48/11); ended 11:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC) - This is in the discretionary range so I'll make a brief comment. While Ryan has abundant support, the issues surrounding his experience and past activity have clearly been concerning to a great many participants. He is advised to examine these issues and consider another candidacy in due time. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Ryan Vesey (talk · contribs) – Esteemed members of the community, I would like to present to you Ryan Vesey. When I met Ryan a year ago, he was a relatively new editor who was asking questions about adoption. I offered to mentor him and quickly found him to be far too competent for adoption, he quite simply didn't need my help. Since then, I've watched him develop into an editor I really admire, mentoring editors himself, helping new users, always offering sage advice. Scroll through his talk page archives, they're littered with positive interactions

Ryan is a hard worker at Articles for creation, helps to co-ordinate WikiProject Wikify, regularly reports vandals to WP:AIV, offers good advice at WP:ANI, has a CSD and PROD log longer than my arm and has even turned his hand to content creation - Thomas Bridges (Anglican missionary) and HMS Phoenix (N96) are just two examples of articles he's worked on.

If I'm honest, I'm almost disgusted at how much good work Ryan does, it makes the rest of us look bad. On the other hand, he's everything I'd want in an admin and more, I hope you take a look at his contributions agree. Worm^TT(talk) 13:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept. Ryan Vesey Review me! 08:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I have never been one to strongly stick to one area of the encyclopedia so I intend to be fairly varied in my administrative activity. To begin with, I plan on helping with protected edit requests, Administrator intervention against vandalism, Candidates for speedy deletion, and some less controversial closes at Articles for Deletion. I also plan on hanging around Requests for undeletion and requests for page protection but intend on offering more advice than taking action since I am fairly new to those areas. That being said, I certainly intend to assist in a more substantial manner if there is a clear backlog or the cases are uncontroversial.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: As I stated in the question above, my edits on Wikipedia aren't generally focused on one area but the contributions I am most proud of were mentioned by Worm. Thomas Bridges (Anglican missionary) was my first major content project and it actually led to my other quality contributions. I focus on that one in particular because taking that from its beginning status to where it is now broadened my editing ability more than any other article. My work with Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify would also be among my best contributions. I generally only make one or two edits per page and don't add content in that area; however, I believe having a properly Wikified article is very important to the project because that is what makes the encyclopedia legitimate in the eyes of many readers. Finally, I have done a lot of work at the Help Desk and the Teahouse which has included working with new editors.

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'd like to address two conflicts here. First, I would like to address my earliest experience with a dispute with another editor. I was a fairly new editor and was unaware of Wikipedia's various dispute resolution systems. I felt like I was unable to get assistance and finally became stressed to the point where I deliberately got myself blocked. I have archived the block information here. During my block, I spent time reviewing various Wikipedia Policies, to prepare myself to edit constructively in the future. Going through Worm That Turned's adoption program a month later helped to firmly ground my knowledge in policy.

A more recent content dispute I have had was at Chelonoidis nigra abingdonii. While my personal opinions were strong on the issue, I helped facilitate talk page discussion and worked to come to a consensus that editors could agree on. Another current example of this appears at Talk:Gilgit–Baltistan. I certainly plan on dealing with it in the future in the same way that I have been recently.

Additional question from Maxviwe

4. Do u think that the closure of this AFD was reasonable? or the user from a specific region tried coordinately to save the article?

A: I do find the the closure of that reasonable. Aside from myself, only one other editor had commented that the article may be deletion worthy. The keep arguments, while generally short, were grounded in an established common outcome. TerriersFan had the most useful keep argument in my opinion. Citing systemic bias as a reason why the common outcome is to keep the articles, specifically related to schools outside of the US, was very useful. In addition, I feel that the AFD had fairly representative global involvement, so I don't believe there was a coordinated effort by editors from a specific region.

Additional question from Leaky Caldron

5. Ryan, please summarise your thoughts on RFA reform.

A: I think that RfA is generally effective in its goal of keeping poor candidates from obtaining Admin tools. I think it is almost equally as effective in giving admin tools to those who deserve them. That almost is one of the reasons that I am supportive of some method of reform attempts. RfA isn't as "broken" as people say, but it can be improved and I see no reason not to. In addition, I think that RfA has historically allowed too many NOTNOW and SNOW editors to create RfA's, but that appears to have been fixed. There has been only one this month if I reviewed them correctly. That may be due to the introduction of the warning template when creating the nomination subpage and I'm interested in seeing if this continues in the future. Finally, I think that the general opinion of RfA keeps some qualified editors from running and I believe that some form of reform, even if it was in the form of minor modifications rather than sweeping changes, would encourage those editors to run.

A few weeks ago you were a strong advocate for minimum edit requirements, insisting that something had to be done and enthusing about a community RFC on the question. You also suggested that sub-minimum candidates should be automatically blocked from transclusion. Which arguments in that discussion have resulted in your change of mind? Leaky Caldron 11:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Arguments in that discussion had nothing to do with it. Worm That Turned made a comment in Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 216#RfA graph and included a percentage chart for NOTNOW and SNOW closes. While it is still too soon to be sure, there does seem to be a decline in the percentage of candidates. If more information shows that the warning is not adequately serving its purpose, I would still be in support of a minimum edit requirement-given the ignore all rules "workarounds" that were built into the proposal.

Was your enthusiasm for a minimum edit count misplaced and that asserting that something really has to be done to reduce SNOW & NOTNOW closures without doing any analysis yourself an indication of impetuousness on your part? Leaky Caldron 13:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It was not. I had worked with RfA reform 2011 when the proposal for a minimum edit count was created. While working there, I had examined the stats already, my determination on the issue was made back in August. I was unaware of some of the newest information, but to say that I had done no analysis myself would be untrue and it is not an indication of impetuousness at all.

Additional question from Phil Bridger

6. I think that some further comments on the deletion discussion raised in question 4 would be useful. In particular do you still think, as you did six weeks go, that being "a poorly written article ... with few references" is a valid reason to nominate for deletion? And what have you learned from that discussion?

A: That one is fairly tough because I do feel that Wikipedia allows poorly written articles on schools in ways it doesn't allow for other content. That being said, we should really have an essay that says AFD is not a cleanup tag. One aspect of having a crowd sourced website like Wikipedia is that pages can always be improved. That is why we have maintenance tags and the like. "A poorly written article ... with few references" would only be eligible for deletion if it couldn't be improved, but that would be a result of not being notable more than of being poorly written. The main thing I learned from the discussion was an appreciation for countering systemic bias.

fwiw, I'd suggest WP:ATD does offer pretty clear guidance that AfD is not a cleanup tag. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Leaky Caldron

7. Did prior warning of this proposal WP:Village_pump_(technical)/Proposal_by_Jc37 influence your decision to allow your name to go forward for RFA now?

A: It had no influence in my decision

But you were aware of it via this off-wiki message from your proposer [1]? Why did you have a change of heart and decide to go ahead with RFA a bit sooner than intended having expressed concern about the need to get some article creation work out of the way first? Leaky Caldron 17:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave Ryan to answer his change of heart, but my reasoning was the signpost article, the flurry of nominations that it inevitably created, and I thought he'd contrast well against the other candidates. I was only peripherally aware of jc37's proposal, I haven't been following it. I did not mention it in the email and it did not occur to me. Worm^TT(talk) 22:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

As Worm said, the Proposal by Jc37 was not mentioned and I had taken part in the discussion prior to any mention of RfA by Worm. My change of heart came in that I felt attempting to create all of the articles prior to the RfA would cause me to rush my contributions and result in lower quality articles. I have no intention to discontinue working on those articles. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

To expand on that, RfA is stressful and I knew it would be stressful. Postponing it was causing a small amount of stress, I decided to transclude slightly earlier than I expected rather than continue to postpone it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Salvio giuliano

8. Do you operate, or have you ever operated, other accounts on Wikipedia?

A: I have a bot account User:Ryan Vesey Bot. It is an AWB bot and has been used to tag articles for Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Umpires task force and has had no other tasks.

Additional question from Bbb23

9. Following up on the AfD issue but addressing the more global issue of our policies and guidelines, what should be done to tackle the problem of poor quality articles? WP:ATD (policy) states, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." WP:BEFORE says pretty much the same thing. My experience, though, is too many poor quality articles are not improved, but, generally, nominating articles, even ones that have been tagged for years, is met with hostility. (Ironically, such AfDs often result in an improved article.) Should the current system remain because, at least in the opinion of many, it is the lesser of two evils, or should the system be changed and, if so, how?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

A: The best way to improve this globally, in my opinion, is to work on editor retention. Specifically of the editors who create those articles. Many editors come, create an article, then leave. We could greatly improve the quality of new articles if we could work on keeping new editors and advising them to improve the articles they most recently created. I really don't have much of an idea on what can be done with the ones that have been tagged forever, except hope that they are improved at some time. Here's a reason why I wouldn't support changing the system to one in which poor articles could be summarily deleted. While it may seem to make sense to nominate a poor unsourced (or poorly sourced) article on a topic that the nominator doesn't find interesting for deletion, there are many editors and readers who find the topic very interesting. PSG Public Schools isn't widely read, but it is still being accessed by a few people every day. Likewise, we have many articles on legal topics that are unsourced and poorly written, but I don't think there would be a valid argument for deleting them if they aren't improved.

Additional question from TruPepitoM

10. Are you an article updater or an article deletioner? TruPepitoM (talk) 08:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

A: I would say I am both. I have created 32 articles so far and helped to get another 26 created through Articles for creation. I update articles that I see in WikiProject Wikify and usually have one project or another of articles I am updating. I currently have a list of 45 articles I am creating. At the same time, there are a number of articles that are inappropriate for Wikipedia and eligible for Speedy Deletion. I have tagged those articles deletion.

Additional question from 86.150.68.109

11. Much seems to made out of your userbox regarding paid editing. I note you also have a userbox stating you are Christian; Given that you show a userbox that commits you to a belief system about an Abrahamic God - that is discredited by the majority of college educated Americans - how will you, as an administrator, balance the current community concerns over paid editing against your opinion that it is acceptable - when there's a good chance you are in the minority?

A: First, it is highly inappropriate for you to attack a person's belief system, whether they be religious or otherwise, anywhere on Wikipedia and I respectfully ask for you to strike that section from your question. As for my opinion on paid editing, it should be irrelevant to my actions as an administrator. Our conflict of interest policies currently provide methods for editors with conflicts of interests and those that are paid to contribute to the encyclopedia. If a paid editor, or another editor who has a conflict of interest repeatedly adds spam links or advertisements to Wikipedia, they can be blocked. The block rationale is that they are misusing Wikipedia and violating Wikipedia policies, not that they are a paid editor. The userbox I have based on my support of paid editing doesn't mean that I will treat paid editors better than any other editor, it means that I won't treat them worse. If a paid editor is acting in a constructive manner, then let them act that way. I will approach their edits as I would any other editor. On a related note, my opinion on the ability of paid editors to contribute to the encyclopedia does not mean I condone promotional usernames.

Exceptionally clueless. You ask me to strike my comments because "it is highly inappropriate for you to attack a person's belief system.....whether they be religious or otherwise". When will you ask those in neutral, oppose (indeed support) to strike their "inappropriate" opinion that they feel your (demonstrated) belief in paid editing is incorrect? Or is it because they are not IPs? The hypocrisy is mind numbing. 86.150.68.109 (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for the confusion, when I said belief system, I was referring to religious beliefs. While I may disagree with editors' opposes based on my views of paid editing, it is not inappropriate for an editor to make a statement on the issue. It is inappropriate for you to make a statement like you did on my religion. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Right, so just so we have this straight; it's fine for people to oppose your belief that paid editing on Wikipedia is acceptable, but it's not acceptable for people to challenge your belief in God. And you're going to leave all your biases at the door when moving in to a controversial editing dispute are you, given your intractable commentary? I think not. If you can't do it at RFA it's certain you won't do it when given the tools. 86.150.68.109 (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

This has gone on quite enough. Badgering is not acceptable behavior here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, Dennis, this is not badgering. I'm trying to find out if the candidate's beliefs will impact his ability to be an administrator. I can't see that clearly through the edit history, so a question and dialogue is perfectly acceptable - and I've asked for more detail. I've even rephrased the question for the sake of peace. Yet again, maybe an IP bias? 86.150.68.109 (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I can assure you this badgering would be considered equally, if not more, unacceptable coming from an established account. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Six of this IP's total of 12 edits have been to this RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems quite ironic that this IP user wants to use Ryan's religious beliefs to hinder his RfA, while at the same time claiming that to be persecuted for being an IP editor. Seriously, it is quite easy to create an account. Or am I telling him something he already knows? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from MelbourneStar

12. Ryan, over the next three or so years, what major changes to Wikipedia do you expect will occur, and, will you play a role in any of these changes?

A: I'm going to be completely honest and say that I don't know the answer to that question, other than that Pending changes will start in December. Major changes to Wikipedia are hard to predict because everything depends on the mood of the community. This isn't exactly a change in policy, but I feel like there will be a major focus on articles on Cities in India. Will wikifying, I come across many Indian City articles, and they are being created every day. WikiProject India has over 68,000 stub articles and I believe a majority of those will be expanded, especially based on the growing population of the country. My participation in this will probably be limited to wikification, as it has been in the past, since I am certainly not an expert on India.

Actually, I'd like to expand on this with one policy change that I believe will happen. I don't know that it will happen in the next three or so, but probably in the next 10. I believe that as the number of currently notable uncreated articles decreases, that our notability requirements will become slightly more lax. I don't believe that teenage garage bands will become notable, but I believe things with local notability will start to have articles. Specifically, I think the community will be willing to support articles on reasonable businesses and organisations that may not meet the current notability requirements. I also think that the summary style may be expanded towards articles where it wouldn't be appropriate to use it now. For example, right now I don't know that an article on Parks in a small town would survive an AFD; however, I think an article of that sort would pass an AFD in a few years. I don't think any massive policy changes will be needed for this. Instead, I think the community will slowly work its way towards that and our requirements will be modified to reflect the new consensus.

Additional questions from DGG

13. Several related parts here--related in the sense that I see a certain inconsistency in what you've been saying.

13A In choosing topics for articles, what is your opinion about making articles about local events or institutions with local sources. I am specifically referring to the article I just AfD'd, Youth Energy Summit! But I'm thinking more generally of not just charity drives, but schools, churches, clubs, and the like. How would you close one where everyone agreed the sources were marginal, but half the people said marginal but good enough, and half said marginal, and not good enough?

Churches, clubs, charity drives, and related local events/institutions can generally not be created. If they are very significant to a large town, then it is more likely that notability can be established. For schools, I think that every high school can be notable and an elementary school or middle school can be notable if it is of historic significance or is widely written about for some other reason. In choosing topics, I only choose ones where I am sure I can establish notability. (please note that Youth Energy Summit! was started on my second day of editing) In fact, I am currently writing an article on the Windom school district rather than just the high school. While I believe an article on the high school can be created, there is more information on the district and it provides more information to the reader. As for closing the AfD, as I stated earlier, it is probably not an AfD I would close, at least not until I had closed a good number of less controversial ones. If I had to close the AfD, my decision would weigh on some information not presented in your question. If the half saying marginal but good enough were specifically citing a policy and showing how the sources met that policy, even though they were marginal, the AfD would probably be closed as no consensus. If the half were saying marginal, but good enough were basing the "good enough" on an I like it idea, then it is likely that policy based consensus would point to delete.

13B In the schools AfD referred to earlier, are you still of the same opinion? If you are still of the same opinion, would you ever close a school AfD ?

While I had a strong view in the AfD mentioned earlier, I no longer have a major opinion on the topic. In a majority of cases, I have no preference. I did once write an essay, based on some discussion at the time, Wikipedia:All high schools can be notable. If you combine that essay with WP:ATD you reach something similar to Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). As a result, I think I would lean towards inclusion of high schools. As for closing AfD's, it is our responsibility to base closes on consensus, not personal opinion; however, I still don't think it would be an area where I am active in closing them.

Answering this is entirely optional (I have cast my vote and will not be changing it), but in view of a well established precedent for the treatment of school articles, albeit neither a policy nor a formal guideline, and in view of the fact that most attempts in many lengthy debates have failed to make it one, and the advice in WP:ATD, I am curious as to what you will be doing, if anything, about your essay at Wikipedia:All high schools can be notable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no intention of doing anything with the essay at this time. As an essay, it is just an opinion, and I still believe it has some merits. If someone wants to do something about it, they are more than welcome to, the essay isn't high on my list of priorities. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

13C Why do you think the supply of suitable fully notable topics will dry up? A good deal of Wikipedia is made up of articles on performers & works of art, on athletes & sports events, of politicians and political events, of businessmen and companies & products, of scientists & discoveries . Will not the number of notable topics here keep growing indefinitely?

A good deal of Wikipedia is written about new information, but a great deal is written about old information. There is a large supply of articles that aren't growing indefinitely. As the number of those drops, editors will focus on improving some existing articles. I feel that a large number of articles can be improved to points where the pages are unreasonably long. I feel that the summary style requirements will be relaxed more than anything so that the page sizes can be decreased. As for the number of notable topics growing indefinitely, I believe they will but the number of unwritten notable topics may not.

Additional questions from LuK3

14. You state you want to get involved with WP:RfPP. When do you think it is acceptable to indefinitely semi-protect an article?

A: Indefinite semi-protection should be used sparingly since it conflicts with the idea that this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. This doesn't mean that I don't think it is necessary, because it is. For an article to be indefinitely semi-protected, it should be one that sees constant vandalism that cannot be stopped by temporary protection. If there is an unreasonable amount of work required to keep the article within our policies, then it can be semi-protected. There are two examples I pulled. First, Barack Obama is indefinitely semi-protected. He is a high profile figure and vandalism will often cause violations of the Biographies of Living Persons policy. I believe that BLP's are generally more eligible for semi-protection due to the danger of BLP violations. Second, Islam is indefinitely semi-protected. Again, this is a high profile article, and it is one that would otherwise be frequently vandalized. Unprotecting the article would leave it open to POV pushing and vandalism.

Additional questions from Tamsier

15. Some editors, to which I am a leading figure believes that many English Wikipedia articles are rampant with Eurocentric (Anglocentric to be exact) views to the detriment of other ethnic groups e.g. Africans, compared to their corresponding French articles which are more inclusive. How do you intend to bridge this gap/perception? I am also troubled by the fact that you created Youth Energy Summit! and are now requesting for its deletion. Are you calling for its deletion because the issue was raised in this RFA?

In response to your first question, I'm not incredibly active in articles of that nature. I am currently in the process of working on articles that are more relevant to Minnesota as well as those of some Wikiprojects I take part in. There isn't much I intend to do to in the realm of making articles more inclusive because those that I edit most often aren't affected by that difference. There isn't much of a global view on someone like Ole J. Finstad. That being said, I have translated a couple of articles from Spanish Wikipedia and plan to continue to do so. As for Youth Energy Summit!, I started that within the first few days of editing. I was unaware of the notability policies and probably wouldn't have started it if I was. I am not calling for its deletion because it was raised in this RfA. An editor nominated it for deletion so I reviewed our notability policies and all of the sources I could find. In the end, I felt that it did not meet the notability guidelines that we have set.

You say and I quote "There isn't much I intend to do to in the realm of making articles more inclusive because those that I edit most often aren't affected by that difference." Considering the fact that Sub-Saharan Africa for instance is under represented in English Wikipedia compared to French Wikipedia, are saying you don't see "inclusiveness" for the benefit of the Wiki project an important issue? In other words, since the projects you are affiliated with are not affected by this, you don't care? Isn't the role of an administrator to improve the Wiki project? I take your point regarding the Youth Energy Summit! I appreciate the fact that Wiki has lots of policies and sometimes they can be confusing. However, the notability guideline is one of the fundamental rules of Wikipedia and I am sure it was pasted on your talk page (via Welcome) when you joined Wiki [2]. Are you saying that you didn't read it, or read it but were still left confused, yet you still went on to create this article? Considering the fact you have have expressed interest in working on deletion tasks if you ever become an administrator (see question 1 above), it makes me wonder how many articles have you created that also fails the notability guidelines and therefore needs to be deleted. Wouldn't you agree? Tamsier (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with articles being created on Sub-Saharan Africa, in fact, with the help of some other editors Pahayi was created. (Note that Doctor Blofeld did a majority of the work on that article) It is just that I edit where my interests lie and where I believe I can improve the encyclopedia. I don't believe that I can be as constructive of a contributor in articles on Sub-Saharan Africa as I can be on the ones I am currently working on. (Right now a large list of legislators, plus some random other ones that I was led to through the course of my editing) In regards to the welcome template, no I did not read everything that it linked me to. I doubt many people do. A majority of my knowledge was gained through experience and Worm That Turned's adoption program. I had another article get deleted early on, Darn Cold Croquet, I voted for deletion in that one as well. After that, my first three articles were two lists split from their main article and an article on a tennis player Allen Morris. I actually created that from a red link, and checked WP:NSPORT to make sure it was notable. My next article was a DYK and all articles from that point on have certainly been checked adequately for notability.

Additional question from IRWolfie-

16. What is your opinion of the WP:FRINGE guidelines, and can you give a demonstrative example situation where you think the guidelines would apply.

A: I just wanted to let you know that I'll be providing an answer to this later, I'm not ignoring it. I'm certainly aware of the existence and spirit of the guideline, but have not done much related to the guideline. I'll take some time to go over it tonight and get back to you with a response

I support the guideline and see no reason not to. Many readers assume that everything presented on Wikipedia is fact, so presenting a fringe theory as fact can be dangerous. I feel the most important aspect of this is marking articles about fringe theories as such. An article on a fringe theory should not exist if it wouldn't meet our normal notability guidelines and it shouldn't be mentioned too heavily in the main article if it isn't notable enough for its own. An example of a particularly poor article on a fringe theory is Non-helical models of DNA structure. I'm not exactly an expert on the subject, so there's not much I can do to improve it. Any takers?

Your answer demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the guidelines (I've outlined why in my neutral vote). While this is understandable considering you have not worked in areas where they apply, I hope you try and get up to speed with these guidelines, especially if your request is successful. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Carrite

17. I see from your block log that you were indeffed for vandalism in May 2011, rescinded after 10 days or so. What's the story there? Carrite (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

A. So here's the whole story. I had been editing for a little over 2 months when the incident started, but an editor added some information to Taiwan. In that information, it contained a mention of Taiwan's claim of mainland China. I had not heard of that information and it was unsourced, so I removed it. The information was reinstated by another editor. I didn't do anything in response. Later, an editor added a citation needed template to the reference, the 2nd editor removed it, I reinstated it saying "how can you say this doesn't need a citation?". I was reverted so I found a citation and added it. Later, the 2nd editor left a rather hostile message on my talk page. I wouldn't call it a personal attack at all now, but at the time I was rather disturbed. I wasn't aware of any of Wikipedia's dispute resolution policies, I'm fairly certain I didn't know that ANI existed. I made the decision to contact some administrators and got a "why are you telling me" response. I was fairly upset at that point and didn't know what else to do so I decided to stop editing. I made the poor choice to go out with a bang. After I had the chance to calm down, I decided I wanted to start editing again. I attempted twice to get unblocked, my first request was really poor. I spent more time on my third request, I read some policy and I cited what I learned. Admins chose to give me a second chance because I was able to show that I was constructive prior to the block, that I had learned, and that my actions leading to the block were out of character. I also agreed to 3 months of mentorship.

Optional questions from jc37

In order to help determine whether you meet my criteria (including your knowledge/understanding of policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship), please answer the following questions.

• 18. How would you personally determine whether you are involved in any particular situation when deciding whether you should block (or unblock) an editor, and when deciding whether you should protect (or unprotect) a page.

• A: First, outside of WP:AIV, I don't intend to do a lot of blocking. It's not an aspect that I would enjoy. That being said, I'm not going to refuse to block an editor if I feel that refusing to do so would cause harm to the encyclopedia or other editors. Being involved for a block can be rather situational. Basically, if I've interacted with an editor directly outside of warnings and similar things, I am considered involved. If I close an AfD in which the user commented in or started, I would not be considered involved. There are also situations where I could be highly involved and still block appropriately. This would be limited to situations where I am involved in "mentorship" of an editor. An example situation is when Worm had to block User:Since 10.28.2010. I feel that involvement in unblocking is slightly less restrictive in that I would only be involved if I had major interactions with the editor. Being involved in a discussion with an editor a couple of months before a block may be considered involvement, while I would not consider it involvement for unblocking. In any case, I intend to discuss unblock requests with the blocking administrator. For page protection, I wouldn't fully protect a page that I had done content work on. I wouldn't semi-protect a page if I was actively doing content work and would refrain from doing it if I had done a large amount of contact work previously. There is obviously an exception for BLP violations.

• 19. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for you to apply the policy to ignore all rules to a situation, while also explaining the interdependency between being bold and seeking (and/or following) consensus on Wikipedia.

• A: I'd like to start with IAR is not meant to be used to create a rule. I feel that is a common misuse and should be addressed. Instead, it should be used to ignore a rule that currently exists. IAR is a "common sense" rule and should only be used if a very good argument can be made that it is "common sense" to ignore the rule. It isn't meant to be applied in incredibly controversial situations. A common usage is closing a deletion discussion early when the article is clearly unworthy of Wikipedia and doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria. It is fairly difficult to think of concrete examples because it is a rule that is situationally dependent. When a situation occurs when a rule should obviously be ignored to improve the encyclopedia, it can be determined by thinking critically about the spirit of the rule.

• 20. How do you determine consensus from a discussion? And how may it be determined differently concerning an RfC, an RM, an XfD, or a DRV.

• A: First, of these, I don't currently plan to take part in any of these other than the articles for deletion process. I have not been very active in the other areas and don't plan on closing those discussions at this time. Consensus is obviously not a count; however, a count can be used as assistance in determining consensus. It is the responsibility of the administrator to recognize the arguments that are supported by policy and those that conflict with policy and determining consensus from the policy based arguments. A simple majority does not make consensus.

• 21. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A: While I dislike blocking editors and do not desire to do so, I would be willing to when requested to take action in an administrative fashion. I would begin by examining the situation. It could be that JohnQ is incorrect and that one of the editors is clearly vandalising the article. If the incident isn't severely bad and if the editors haven't been warned about edit warring before, I would warn them each for edit warring and point them to the talk page for discussion. I would be willing to block later if need be, but would lean towards temporary full protection if I felt it would cause the editors to discuss the issue on the talk page. In severe cases, especially if the editors had a history of edit warring or POV pushing, I would consider immediate temporary full protection or blocks. Blocking would be a last resort though, only used if I had evidence that the editors would not discuss the issue if I took other action because blocking the editors makes it more difficult for consensus on a mutually acceptable version to be met.

• 22. Per some recent comments you have made which you have suggested on your talk page may potentially affect your request for adminship: What is your assessment of the current situation around User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz? Also, adding this hypothetical: Let's pretend that you passed your RfA over a month ago, and have been an admin in good standing since then. What (if anything) would you have done following recent events? - jc37 21:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• A: I recognize that Kiefer was not entirely civil, but I wouldn't have blocked him myself and I believe the instance was rather marginal. Editors have not been blocked for much worse. I certainly think the block was too long based on the actions he took to get blocked. If my RfA was over a month ago, I would have mentioned that I felt the lock was too long on the talk page, and if I met the same response, I would have taken it to ANI, just as I did now.

Thank you for your answers. My apologies for being unclear. The hypothetical was intended to include: "...if User:Kafziel had not yet blocked User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz". - jc37 04:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, as I said I would not have blocked Kiefer. I probably would have noted the issue to him and requested that he retract the offending portion of his statement. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

And if, without any other comment, he removed your post from his talk page with an edit summary of "go in peace", but continued in the previous vein on the page(s) you were requesting retractment concerning? - jc37 04:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the end of your question is a bit confusing. In any case, I feel it would be covered by the talk page guidelines. While it is usually preferable to remove the entire section, I don't see it as being a problem if it doesn't change any other context of the question. In any case, I would be highly involved so a block would be inappropriate anyways.

Again my apologies. In other words that he was continuing the behaviour which caused you to ask him to refactor.

And what personal criteria are you using to determine that you would "be highly involved"? - jc37 04:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, I believe I understand you now. I thought you were referring to if he had previously removed information of mine. I mentioned "highly involved" because I was under the impression that you were referring to a situation where I was recently in a dispute with Kiefer. In any case, I would be involved in that instance as I have interacted with Kiefer and I would not be a blocking admin. In addition, I have stated that I prefer to avoid blocking as much as possible. If Kiefer refused to retract his statement, I wouldn't go beyond that. It would be an issue not entirely related to me, so the admin to whom he left the message could decide what to do. My response would be based on whatever action was taken after that point, but my support for a block would be stronger given the hypothetical situation where Kiefer was given the opportunity to retract his comment and refused.

Additional question from Electriccatfish2

23. In what situations would you issue an indefinite block to a user?

A: Accounts that are a violation of our username policy can be indefinite blocked until the user agrees to change their name. I generally support giving the user the opportunity to change their name without blocking them first. It is also appropriate to indef-block vandalism only accounts. There are other situations where indef blocks may be appropriate, for example an account that has been repeatedly disruptive; however, I still plan to discuss those at ANI. Like I have said, blocking accounts for reasons other than vandalism is not one of the reasons I want the tools.

General comments

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• Edit statistics are pasted on the talk page now. mabdul 09:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I must say I am surprised at some of the opposition to Ryan. I didn't want to badger the opposers, but I did want point out some thoughts on the general themes. There appears to be opposition on an idioligical basis, be it to his religion or to his opinion on paid editing. As far as I was aware, we don't choose administrators based on their ideals, they should have as many opinions as there are on wikipedia. What matters about an administrator is how they would handle the tools, and whether that ideology would affect their handling. If you believe that it would, then please do say so.
    As for the block and the lack of experience, I took this into consideration when I nominated Ryan. The block was over a year ago, he only had about 1000 edits at the time and a couple of months experience, he could certainly be considered a "newbie". Since then he has made over 12000 more edits, time and experience are great healers. How much clean editing are we looking for these days? I should point out that passed RfA with just 6000 edits, only a year ago. Taking a break from wikipedia for college is admirable, it was a matter of months, nothing should have changed in that time. Worm^TT(talk) 08:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Puzzling. I don't see anyone commenting at all on his religion, or saying that his decision to take a break for his studies was wrong. Nobody appears to be opposing on those issues. --Michig (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear - it's just my view of some things that have happened in the RfA. Religion was discussed, question 11 above. Neutral 1, Opposes 3 and 4 both complain of few edits Sept to April, which was due to college work, per reply to Neutral 1. Worm^TT(talk) 13:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

So wait, since when has someone's opinion on paid editing affected their suitability for the administrator tools? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't careless about his religion or even his block. All I am interested in is how he would make the Wiki project better if he becomes an admin and how he would exercise the powers bestowed upon him. I would make my decision after evaluating all the facts. I must be one of those editors who do not place too much emphasis on his block. As far as I am concerned, the block is actually an advantage, because it shows that he is human and has passion, which is something Wikipedia needs. I am very suspicious about the motives of certain editors who "pussyfoot around" and consciously make it a mission never to get blocked.Tamsier (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support - No reason to oppose. He has pretty good CSD log. Also, his article space edits look nice, shows good understanding of policies and is hard working in a good way. →TSU ^tp* 08:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
2. Obvious support is obvious. See nom. Nom nom nom. Worm^TT(talk) 09:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

   Are you sure you haven't been sneakily taking edit summaries a little further, or is it just coincidence? :) [3] Rcsprinter (speak) 16:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

3. Support from the logs I can see he has tried patrolling, moving and uploading. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
4. Support particularly regarding the answers of the question and wide types of edits.Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 09:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
5. Support - Ha, I wondered when this was going to happen! I've seen Ryan Vesey around since the days Worm first encountered him (and even before then, in fact!), and he's been terrific in every forum I've seen him - knows Wikipedia policy very well, is able to interpret it intelligently, and is very helpful all round. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
6. Support Hard-working, helpful user--Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
7. Support based on what I've seen of Ryan around various places. KTC (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
8. Support I've grown to trust his opinions and objectivity in discussions. We sometimes have different ideas, but he is always inquisitive rather than stubborn, open minded and wanting to understand the "why" of things. Ryan will be an asset with the bit, this I'm sure of. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
9. Support Everything I've seen about Ryan's editing has been good, so I've got no reason to think that he'd misuse the tools. Nick-D (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
10. I thought you were an admin already! →Bmusician 13:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
11. Support - I've seen him in far too many places to count and he certainly conducts himself like an admin. Andie ▶Candy◀ 13:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
12. Strong support – I've been waiting for this to happen. Ryan was extremely helpful to me personally recently and has been to many other people as well. He seems to understand how Wikipedia works and I see no real reason not to support him fully. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
13. Support As per Bmusician! ≫TheStrike Σagle≪ 14:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
14. Support – Seems like a levelheaded editor. -- Luke (Talk) 15:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
15. Support One of the most ideal candidates for these tools. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 15:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
16. per nom. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
17. Support I have seen edits from this editor in admin-related areas on a large number of occasions, and am sure he will be a competent admin.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
18. Support. Good contributions. CSD tagging has a good hit rate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

    Enthusiastic support Support reluctantly withdrawn. See below under "oppose". I first came across Ryan in May 2011, when he made an unblock request from an indefinite block. I kept a close eye on Ryan's editing for quite a time after his unblock, and I was delighted to see that he was editing completely constructively, with no repetition of the problems that had led to the block. He said that he had learnt his lesson, and indeed he had. He has continued to do excellent work from then on. From time to time I come across Ryan's reports at AIV, and they are always sound (which is, unfortunately, not true for many regulars there) so I am confident that he has a good understanding of this area of admin work. I don't always agree with Ryan's opinions at AfD, but they are always reasonable and intelligent opinions, and I have seen him willing to be persuaded to change his mind when others have given good reasons, which is an important asset for an administrator: we don't need dogmatic and inflexible administrators. Ryan's strongest point, in my opinion, is that he is courteous and helpful to well-meaning but uninformed new editors. He is much better at this than many existing administrators, so adding him to the admin corps would have a benefit in this respect. All in all, I am delighted that he is now being considered for the mop, and I am totally confident that he will make good use of it. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

19. Thousands of good edits, lots of good administrative work, has been here for more than 6 months. —Kusma (t·c) 16:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
20. Support He may have had an erratic history, but I keep seeing him around the admin areas - and find it hard to believe that he hasn't been here for years (and have to keep reminding myself that he isn't an dmin...). I can't recall any problems that I've come across, and reckon that he'll be a willing learner in areas he hasn't done much in yet. (If there are any...) Peridon (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
21. Strong Support I have seen Ryan around WP for many months and he frequently catches and reverts vandalism faster than I can. His edits seem very constructive and I've seen him be helpful to other editors. I find his nomination answers genuine and his explanations of historical challenges very satisfactory. There is no need for someone to have been perfect to receive Admin privileges. If that were the case, we'd have no admins at all. Vertium (talk to me) 19:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
22. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 20:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

    Why? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

23. Soutenir et fort! ⇒TAP 21:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
24. Support, thought you were already an admin.. Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 21:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
25. Support, like what I've seen around wiki, a few kinks to work out, but he'll be fine.PumpkinSky talk 21:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
26. Support - I am so impressed with his turnaround since May 2011. I keep seeing his name attached to reasonable comments all over the admin areas and think he will be an asset to the admin corps. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
27. Per my 8-ball. Also, opposes are unconvincing. T. Canens (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
28. Support - I'll try to get a more extensive reasoning in, but on the off chance that I'm offline until the conclusion of this RfA, I want to express my faith in Ryan's actions as an editor and trust in his abilities as an admin. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

    So to expand: I first met Ryan, if I'm remembering correctly, around a year ago on the talk pages of Project Wikify after Guoguo12 left us. The project had a bit of a leadership vacuum, and Ryan stepped in and filled one of the empty positions superbly. He showed great clue, came up with some great ideas and demonstrated the skills that I believe would make him an excellent admin. He has since expanded his wiki-activity to many other areas, but we've kept in touch and it's obvious how much he has grown. I constantly see his comments and edits in new places, but he always seems to have a grasp on whatever topic is being discussed. I find the opposes extremely unconvincing, especially the ones related to his activity levels and the May 2011 incident. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

29. Support I met Ryan on the #wikipedia-en-help IRC, and he's a joy to interact with - plus, his edits are strong, too! Start mopping, my friend. :D Theopolisme _TALK 01:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
30. Strong Support I've seen him around here wherever I go, and he certainly is fit for the mop. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
31. Support. No concerns from what I've seen of the candidate. Glad to have him on board. -- œ^™ 01:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
32. Support – From everything I've seen of him, he seems conscientious and knowledgeable. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
33. Support - He's been a dedicated host at WP:Teahouse. On top of his many other fine qualities, he's a good collaborator and works hard to support new editors. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 03:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
34. I thought he already was a sysop, but if not certainly someone who is looking to do article related stuff will earn my support. –BuickCenturyDriver 14:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
35. Support Great contributions and CSD noms. —HueSatLum 14:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
36. Support - I thought he had been here a lot longer. Deb (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
37. Support. Good to see how things can improve over a year or so, if people are given a second chance and have the nous to seize it. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

    Support. Normally I would oppose a young man having his intelligence spending much time on Wikipedia, but I am impressed by his having stopped editing during his school term(s). He has intelligence, character, and discipline, and the rest of us should support him. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

    Kiefer has requested that his support be changed, see [4]. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

38. Support Per Kiefer, although I do have minor concerns about the paid editting stance. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
39. Support I had initially came here to support and having read the current oppose rationals still find myself here. Ryan has shown a great many of the qualifications we should be looking for in a administrator. He has demonstrated his strong grasp of policies and guidelines and willingness to help others on many occasions at places such as the help desk and answering help requests where his answers are usually spot on. He has shown that he can communicate well with a variety of different editors, often going to lengths to help out an editor at the end of their rope. As far as the paid editing opinion, it is just an opinion. Most of us have one, but it is whether or not it effects how we contribute and adhere to policy. I have seen nothing to suggest it would effect the way he carries out policy, just as it doesn't for the rest of us with or without an opinion. Calmer Waters 21:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
40. Support Helped this elderly newcomer. I watched and admired his activity in many areas of WP. Hiatus for school and work are understandable. No, he's not perfect but I'm confident that he'll perform well as a sysop and continue to improve with experience and maturity.DocTree (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
41. Support. I see in Ryan Vesey the beginnings of an excellent administrator. The May tantrum/block is over; the editor has learned his lesson. Ryan makes good judgments at ANI, AfD, and article talk pages. He is young but I think he will grow into the job. Binksternet (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
42. Mild Support I have some reservations, but I agree with Binksternet here, he's worth the gamble because he shows the proper knowledge of our main policies and guidelines. Paid editing userbox doesn't worry me, people is allowed to say their views on that subject, neither is SilkTork link as it was acceptable rebuttal in this situation. Secret ^account 06:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

    Gosh the answers to DGG questions is wrong in most aspects, but that is trivial comparing to other things I see from this candidate recently and no editor is perfect. Looking at the AN/I discussion that was linked below, he's a person whose not afraid to express his opinions and shows a lot of WP:CLUE for his experience, something hardly seen in an administrator. I even see this with the AFD discussion SilkTork linked, which he's questioning the instant "notability" of high school articles despite an obvious lack of sources and a few other discussions in other areas of the project that I see Ryan in. Sometimes this type of questioning is dangerous because it might lead to more drama, something the project need much less, but I don't see Ryan doing anything stupid. We need more of these administrators. Strong Support Secret ^account 04:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

43. Support I've seen this user around and was surprised to see that he is not already an administrator. Though I do have some reservations concerning the block last May, I am willing to believe that Ryan will continue to do good through his second chance and serve as an asset as an administrator. Michael (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
44. Support - so people are opposing/neutraling because the editor in question prioritised his college work over teh internet? To me that shows maturity and the ability to think hard about matters at hand - ideal for a prospective admin. GiantSnowman 08:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
45. Support Give the man a mop! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 09:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
46. Support - why not, seems like a good editor. Specs112 t c 12:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
47. Strong Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

    Upgrading to strong support due to excellent composure in this RfA, and having the integrity to challenge an admin on what he saw as an overly harsh block, even though he allmost certainly knew it would hurt his chances of passing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

48. Support Confident in this users dedication to the project, slightly concerned at the May 2011 incident but know that over a year has passed since then.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
49. Support I'm very satisfied with this editor, and their contributions to Wikipedia. I simply, couldn't care less if they support paid-editing or not - I fully oppose it; but at the end of the day, what that has to do with becoming an administrator, I will never understand. The opposes arguments are very convincing, just like my sarcasm. Good luck, Ryan! -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 16:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
50. Support I have always had a pleasant interaction with this user and I see nothing that proves he will abuse the bit.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
51. Support Wanna take my luck along?--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 16:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
52. Support per Calmer Waters, Dennis Brown and others, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
53. Support From what I've seen will be an excellent admin. Disagree with concern raised on paid editing don't see a reason why this would interfere with the ability to be a good admin. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
54. Aye. The most serious issue in this candidate's history is this one. It's way past time we as a community got over it. (If we refuse to forgive and forget then we create yet another incentive to sockpuppetry, and besides, people change). More recently, all I can see is very solid and positive.—S Marshall T/C 20:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
55. Support...one moderate bump-in-the-road now seems well in the past. Subsequent and prior contributions suggest general trustworthiness.--MONGO 23:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
56. Support. My interactions - though limited - have only been positive. He'll do great! Lord Roem (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
57. Support Admirable user. He's ready for the tools. —Hahc21 03:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
58. Strong support – Like many other users (I see), I already thought you were an admin. I don't see a reason for you not to be one! Statυs (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
59. Support Particularly for his work at the Teahouse. GaramondLethe 07:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
60. Strongest possible support; a man of sense and discretion. Ironholds (talk) 09:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
61. Support. His contributions are impressive, he seems to have learned from his block, and I can't see any reason that his opinions on paid editing would affect his ability to perform admin tasks. He thoroughly deserves a mop. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
62. Support. While this is not an unqualified support, the candidate has addressed the possible issues well enough for me. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
63. Support I see no reason to believe this user will abuse the tools. Appears to have learned from his newbie mistake. I am concerned that he might still believe in civility above all, but I have reason to believe he does not. Hipocrite (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
64. Support Quietly seen exemplary work from this user in the past, adminship will only be one more little thing to help them. Rcsprinter (speak) 16:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
65. Strong support. Seen him everywhere, great candidate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
66. Support. I came here a few days ago expecting to offer an easy support based upon my frequent crossing of paths with the candidate. As I started looking over the RfA, I did a double-take when I read JamesBWatson's support statement, because I had previously been unaware of the block and the history accompanying it. Consequently, I decided to give this a couple of days more thought – and I find myself ending up with the same opinion as JamesBWatson. (Noting that he has subsequently changed his mind. I have not. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)) There are quite a few users whom I respect who have ended up opposing, and this RfA seems to me to contain much of what people debate, about whether or not RfA has become too difficult, so I want to explain my reasoning carefully. I've seen Ryan's editing repeatedly, and he has always been both courteous and clueful when I've interacted with him. The issues about userboxen are non-issues for me, because I've seen his editing style, and he just doesn't have editing problems in those areas. I've looked into the article that has now gone to AfD, and although it doesn't strike me as a particularly good or keep-worthy article, I'm just not seeing anything that would lead me to conclude that he would be an inept or insensitive administrator. Nor am I concerned about the parsing of the discussions here about AfD philosophy. And for that block, I've read all of the discussions that came with it, and what I see is a single dumb mistake, followed by a thoughtful learning process by someone who really wants to contribute positively. It's actually quite nice to see someone who made a mistake as a new editor, now reaching out to help new editors. We certainly have had many users who got themselves blocked, and then just said the hell with it. This is different – and you can see how it is different, by looking at how Ryan has been conducting himself in the face of criticism during this RfA. This is exactly why we should believe in second chances. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

    I have to add this: [5], as a further reason that I support. If anyone is looking for evidence that Ryan would use administrative tools correctly, without regard for personal self-interest, you won't find a better predictor than that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

67. Support. Per JBW, Tryptofish, and others. Also, I'm not impressed with some of the "pile on" activity I'm seeing at ANI. Being willing to raise tough questions is something I appreciate. Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
68. Support. Something I've just seen – an all too rare expression of common sense – has fundamentally changed my opinion, so I'm ending up here. Malleus Fatuorum 19:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
69. Support I've seen Ryan around, probably have interacted with him, and generally have observed clued-up comments in front of his signature. I'm sure he'll take note of the opposition comments that have value, and heed them. I agree, too, with the diff Malleus has cited positively above. (addendum) I'm really impressed with this as well, which I think is heartfelt and honest. Pedro :  Chat  19:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

    That diff was one of the things that shifted me into the support column. Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

70. Support - There is one thing I respect and that's people who stick to their principles regardless of what may come. I think Ryan dealt with the IP's question above brilliantly when the issue of religion was raised. Although others think Ryan is trying to toe the party line, I disagree. I am satisfied with his honesty in answering the questions. As regards to the links, I would hold the same view in some of those discussions. I also admire the fact that he actually create articles rather than just participating in their deletion through PROD or AfD, etc. As an inclusionist, I believe we will lock horns at some point, but will cross that bridge when we get to it. Given the tools, I think Ryan would be a fair administrator and within a year or two, one of the best administrators on English Wikipedia. As stated above in the discussion, I care less about his block. The block shows that he is human and has passion which is what is needed here. Had he never been blocked, it would make me wonder. In the same breath, I am somewhat concerned about his age/maturity and hope that he does not use his powers as a badge of honour to the detriment of the project. However, I am willing to take a chance on him. If anything, English Wikipedia has taught me that age is irrelevant when it comes to the maturity of administrators. I wish him all the best.Tamsier (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

    Comment - actually I though he dealt with the question over his religion pretty poorly and it did make me pause; I just don't think it's relevant to getting some buttons on a website so I overlooked it. Ryan stated it is highly inappropriate for you to attack a person's belief system; yet if we challenge a persons political beliefs (for example amongst many) it would never be "highly inappropriate". I've no truck with religion, and the arrogance of Ryan's commentary is typical of a young man raised to believe that "polite society" will not and should not question religious belief. He's wrong, in many ways, and hopefully he'll overcome this in later years. Nevertheless whilst his steadfastness is concerning it's also an asset, and I don't believe it will affect his ability to use the tools. His recent efforts at ANI have shown that his conviction is a benefit IMHO. Pedro :  Chat  20:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

    I agree, but I'm minded that Americans take religion far more seriously than we Brits do, so ... Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

    Yes, a good point - Slightly Anglo centric of me, so apologies - American religious conviction is often deeply ingrained and is not overtly a reason to criticise an individual. Pedro :  Chat  20:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

    Provided he is not shoving his religious beliefs on my throat or letting it affect his judgement, I have no problem with what he beliefs in. The IP could have phrased the question better but in stead, decided to go in head first. I think Ryan was very respectful but firm. If it was me I would have been blunt. That's why I am not an administrator and will never be one. Don't even want to be. I know my place.Tamsier (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

71. Move to support. I thought this was genuine, heartfelt and wise. --John (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)#Support
72. Support - Ryan has shown a commitment to Wikipedia by logging numerous edits and participating in the community. Although he was blocked over a dispute a while back, he appears to have learned a great deal from it. Mistakes like this (especially when done while the member is new) shouldn't haunt one's entire Wikipedia career.--Drdak (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
73. Support Inexperienced, eager for power (the "This user is not a Wikipedia administrator, but would like to be one someday" userbox is always a red flag); also it's arguable that his proudly displayed irrational belief system "matters", as Martin Amis said about a presidential candidate's Mormonism, "to one's opinion of his IQ"; and I strongly disagree with his advocacy for commercialized production of WP content. That said, in the midst of this RfA the fellow has the integrity to stick his neck out and take issue with the excessive length of a block on another user, and the chutzpah to put the blocking admin right on several key points. Good enough for me. We need more like this. Writegeist (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
74. Support, moved from oppose. I still have concerns, but the fact that this kid young man had the balls to haul a rouge admin to ANI in the middle of his RfA was enough to sway me. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
75. Support - not perfect, but has the essentials: integrity, honesty, and common sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
76. Weak support - Concerned a bit about the AFD noted above and would like to see some more content creation, but Ryan's work has been pretty good and I think that he has shown that he learned from it. Regarding paid editing, I don't think that should be a grounds for opposition, and religion should definitely not be such. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
77. Support So far as I can judge in cases like this we simply cannot tell at RFA whether or not people will become adequate admins. However, I don't like it when people prepare for RFA by behaving in an obsequious way. Ryan has not done so. Thincat (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
78. Support The importance of using thought and weighing issues is essential; as is learning from your mistakes...Modernist (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
79. Support no concerns. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
80. support I do see lots of concerns and suspect that waiting 3-6 months to rub off some of the rough edges would be ideal. But he'd be a net positive at this point, so I'm here. Hobit (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
81. Support as a constructive and involved editor. My initial reaction to this RFA was, "Ryan's not an admin already?!" I see his comments and edits all over the place, and in general they seem well-considered. If we only want admins who have never made a mistake and never expressed an unpopular opinion, I'd have to resign and I suspect many others would as well. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
82. Support I've long noted his constructive work here. I was surprised by the block, but that does not appear likely to recur. Fwiw, I see nothing "inappropriate" in his defence of KW—one can legitimately disagree—and the fact that KW has now changed his position to oppose because the candidate didn't support him enough reinforces my positive view of Ryan's role here. There was quite a lot of heat and name calling at that ANI but Ryan kept his head, his dignity and acquitted himself very well, I think. Hope we can get a few more opposers and fence sitters over to support to get this done. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
83. Support per this -- Agathoclea (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
84. Support no concerns.Aervanath (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
85. Support: this editor has made an extremely positive impact on the pedia. They are conscientious, fair and a hard worker. This editor exemplifies the qualities we seek in an admin. I give Ryan my unqualified support. – Lionel ^(talk) 20:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
86. Support should be a net positive. I don't see anything wrong in the ANI discussion. Regardless of one's own opinion, Ryan explained his (fairly moderate) position and did so calmly and clearly. That's all we expect from administrators. Pichpich (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
87. Support has a desire to do the right thing and is independently minded. Ankh.Morpork 23:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
88. Support. mabdul 01:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
89. Support. Many positive points. The incident with the block seems to be positively learned and recovered from, and the upfront declaration at Q3 counts positively. Expressing opinions on difficult and contentious project issues, such as paid-editing, or what to do with apparently productive edits made in violation of WP:SOCK, BLOCK or BAN, should be encouraged and the mere expression of such opinions should not be sufficient reason to oppose. He did not, I assume, perform paid editing, or violate SOCK, BLOCK or BAN, or attempt to unilaterally ovewrite policy against consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
90. Support' per review of random contributions, previous observations of the editor, and the diffs supplied by Malleus, Agathoclea, and John. --j⚛e decker^talk 06:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
91. Support, while the circumstances surrounding the initial block highlights a serious lapse of judgment, it's clear that Ryan has redeemed himself. I see no other concerns. -Cntras (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
92. Support, doesn't give a fig about failing RFA which is just the attitude imo. Otherwise I really have no idea if this person is suitable to be an admin as to do it justice would take hours of checks. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
93. Support. Qualified candidate at this point, which isn't to say that he won't be more qualified with a few months of further experience—but since I trust the candidate to ease into adminship gradually and focus on tasks as he becomes comfortable with them, I don't see the need to vote him down now and have him return later on. Several of the opposers' concerns, such as with the incident that led to the block last year among others, are quite reasonable and I trust that the candidate has learned from those incidents, but some of the other rationales for opposing strike me as quite weak, and the amount of "quizzing" of the candidate in the questions section of this RfA is a bit overdone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
94. Support. If we turned down every admin candidate who has ever made an ass of him/herself, we would quickly be left with no one to run the encyclopedia. I had originally intended to oppose, but I find the many arguments in favor of support to be both logical and convincing. This candidate has, in my mind, CLEARLY redeemed himself for any past wrongdoing. And really... how much more can we expect from him? His current track record is exemplary, and I see no reason to think he will suddenly make a 180 degree turn when given the tools. But if it would make anyone feel better, I have a big backyard... we can lay out some hot coals and broken glass, then make him crawl over it. Anyone? Anyone? Trusilver 18:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
95. Support. This guy has some very good content work and he has good understanding of the policies on wiki. But far more important to me is that he's got the very rare gift of communication which I find most admins lack. With just about every editor he's had contact with (check his talk page), Ryan is not only helpful but genuine. Having good communication skills is important for an admin and too many lack it but this guy has it. The fact that he's also genuine is a big plus. I like this dude. Caden ^cool 19:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
96. Support - I admit I am less secure in this !vote than I'd like to be, and I don't, for example, agree with the candidate's handling of the Kiefer.Wolfowitz situation. But I am impressed with other aspects, such as his response to what I consider inappropriate questioning in Q11, and I think he can be trusted with the tools. Rlendog (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
97. Support. Positives far outweigh temporary weaknesses. Maturing & learning rapidly. Dedicated comeback since block. Helpful to newbies, hard worker. Rational, thoughtful, expresses self well. Trust will fit the tools into college life appropriately & end up one of the best. Mature enough to take the pressure now if wanting it. Indef so far in relative past = non-issue. Paid editorship = non-issue (community-determined). Obama vetted *less* and given world's most powerful mop. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
98. Support He is a committed contributor, and has responded appropriately to valid concerns raised here. Kablammo (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
99. Support Seems enthusiastic and genuine. And prepared to stick his neck out when he feels another editor has been mistreated. Also (apparently) has the major advantage of knowing how it feels to be blocked, a possible prerequesite for adminship in my book. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
100. Support WP:100 Appears to have considerable all-round knowledge. I see no reason not to have the mop.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
101. Support. Is he capable of doing the job? Yes. Is he likely to turn into a rouge admin? Doubt it. But what happens if he does? Arbcom zaps him. No big deal then? Right. User:Moriori[6] 00:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
102. Support I agree with the primary concerns in the oppose section. However, I think that this user has shown he will strive to use the tools according to community expectations, and had the ability to do so. More administrators are needed, and I decline to require perfection from a candidate. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
103. Support - Recent work on copyvio issues indicates a need for the extra tools. Don't let the drama boards consume you, friend. Carrite (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
104. Support Comes across as capable and willing to listen. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
105. Support A few days ago I was going to oppose, based on the relatively short length of service, the 2011 block and other reasons people have stated as their oppose votes. Like others, I would also have hoped to support a second RfA in a few months time. However, Ryan's willingness to address what he perceived to be the unfair treatment of a fellow editor by an admin while his own RfA was still ongoing was a tremendously courageous thing to do, and the sensible comments he made as part of that ANI process have shed a different light on his character. While he may still be on the learning curve, Ryan has demonstrated that he is a judicious and passionate editor who holds the best interests of both the encyclopedia AND the community close at heart, and I no longer see any reason to delay awarding him the admin tools, since he has so clearly demonstrated his commitment to the project. — sparklism ^hey! 09:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
106. Support per Newyorkbrad, and per the interactions I've had with the candidate, all of which showed a friendly and helpful demeanor. 28bytes (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
107. Support I've seen Ryan around a lot, very helpful. While still should tread carefully in new areas, I'm convinced he will.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
108. Support. Is he perfect? No candidates are. Can he be trusted with tools? Yes. Too any good things about this candidate to oppose. BusterD (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
109. Support - On balance, I believe that RV can be trusted with the tools. Would ideally have preferred a clean block log, but I'm sure he's learned from the experience. Failure to learn from errors is much, much worse than making errors and learning from them. Mjroots (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
110. Support Great candidate. :) Steven Walling • talk 22:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
111. Support. I've been hesitating, as I am indeed not very happy about Youth Energy Summit! and a few other things. But I understand YES was early work, and the candidate does seem to be developing as a writer and in other ways of handling himself (and even to be prepared to vote for the deletion of YES; good sign, that). His input in discussions is thoughtful and reasoned and often a breath of fresh air. Perhaps he'll even see the light w r t paid editing one day (jk, Ryan, I don't mean to steamroll you out of your convictions), and in the meanwhile, I don't believe his opinion in that matter would sway him in the use of the mop and bucket. Watching from afar and without any personal interactions, I just get a good impression of him. Will make a good admin, I think. As for the old block, I say: bah. It's all experience. Nothing makes me more suspicious than a snowy clean block log (only half joking). Bishonen | talk 00:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC).
112. Support. Thoughtful, hard-working, genuinely believes in the project and is doing everything he can to improve it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
113. Support - Enough experience and the interactions I've seen have been encouraging. A moldy block doesn't worry me too much. AlexiusHoratius 03:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
114. guarded and cautious Support - really not impressed with this or this, but Ryan seems pretty up-front and honest. I very nearly opposed but sat and thought about it, and figured that Ryan's enthusiasm will on probability make him a net positive. Just please (a) don't get in notability debates, (b) understand that any material has had someone's hard-earned hours developing it, so don't be flippant about deleting material. Better would be to write some content but folks won't write stuff 'cos I tell 'em) and (c)...just be nice and thoughtful...remember it's your name and reputation....talk softly and carry big stick...;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
115. Support Argh, difficult one. My head says neutral, while my heart says support. I'm not worried about the paid support as anybody can have their own opinion. The block was awhile ago and he seems to have learned from it. We all make mistakes, but the keys are do we admit them and do we learn or repeat. I've had nothing but pleasant experiences with him. He is enthusiastic with well thought answers. My main concern was experience. In the end, he positives I've witnessed overrules the experience issue. Bgwhite (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
116. Support- Per his ideals. Dru of Id (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
117. Support I find no reason to oppose...he can handle the mop without overusing it. Jedd Raynier wants to talk with you. 09:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

This is a regrettable oppose (moved to neutral). The breadth of a man's character is measured across his ability. The depth, by tenacious resolve. While I've observed your abilities, I've also observed your lack of depth. Unfortunately ability is hardly effective if you lack endurance to see it through. Good luck Ryan. StringdaBrokeda (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

When I noticed you removed content from your user page, I was curious. What I saw in reading the page, I find very, very disturbing. I will review this matter in depth, but initial results are damning. Your aggressive nature and inclination to assume the worst, first, are telling. I don't know if Dannyboy1209 can become a good contributor or not. What I know is that any user should cringe that decisions can be, and are made this way. I do advise as many who aspire to diligence to review this talk page from the top. Do consider that the user began affiliation with Ryan as his adoptee. Remember that this debacle was displayed as a proud moment. And notice the dates as well. If you like this stuff, and it suits you, I'm sure you'll feel more comfortable in supporting. For me, it is the last thing I thought I might see. StringdaBrokeda (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

My76Strat, I had to agree to get CSD mentoring to pass my RfA two months ago, so I'm not as worried about depth, as he is pretty good at not biting off more than he can chew. As to that user page, I see several editors that are assuming good faith with the lad, perhaps assuming too much good faith, which is entirely better than an admin that assumes too little. I've made the exact same mistake of assuming faith and getting trolled, yet the blue marble still spins. If anything, it shows he is patient. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. Thank you for that perspective Dennis. - StringdaBrokeda (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Oppose. User has had less than 12 months total contributions and in that time managed to get blocked, and in the recent AfD linked above the user is badgering other participants in the discussion in a moderately aggressive manner with personalised wording such as "There really isn't anything I can do though if nobody will engage with my argument and continue to rely on the mess that is Wikipedia:Notability (high schools)" and "Their interest is limited to keeping this slop in Wikipedia", displaying the same difficulty in remaining neutral and calm and assuming the worse of others that resulted in the block. I would like to see at least another six months of active, appropriate and trouble-free participation in order to feel more comfortable supporting. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

   Comment about the block: This may be a weird way of looking at things, but I don't think the block should necessarily be viewed as being 100% bad. I read the unblock requests, and I believe the user learned his lesson very well, and matured considerably during the "forced Wikibreak". I also suspect that Ryan now has something that most admins don't: empathy for blocked users. I would expect that he has special insight into how it feels to be blocked, and would be an asset at WP:RFU. ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

   My point is that in that AfD, he nominated an article for deletion, and when consensus went against him he started to personalise the issue (feeling aggrieved - "There really isn't anything I can do though if nobody will engage with my argument") and made derogatory remarks against those who disagreed with him ("These articles get created all the time and nobody cares enough about them to write a quality article. Their interest is limited to keeping this slop in Wikipedia.") He was over-reacting - not as much as he did when he removed a sourced sentence in an article and got reverted, then ended up doing this, this, this, and this, but in a manner that does give cause for concern. Given the lack of real editing time between that situation and now, and those indications in the recent AfD that he still has difficulty when people disagree with him, I feel a longer period to assess how he copes in real conflict situations would be of benefit to everyone (after all, that AfD was not what many of us would consider a conflict, it was a run of the mill AfD nomination). The other indications are that he has a genuine interest in helping out at Wikipedia, and does good work. I'd rather wait a bit longer and keep a good editor, than push someone forward into a role that can be stressful and possibly end up with a nasty conflict with unfortunate end results. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

   Agree with astute point by Adjwilley. We are all human: we make mistakes. How we respond to those mistakes says a lot about our character. I've looked at the circumstances of the block and am impressed with the way Ryan has turned this into a learning experience. – Lionel ^(talk) 21:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

   @SilkTork: Point taken. I hope that if Ryan doesn't make it this time he will choose to try again in a few months. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

2. Reluctant oppose. I don't see anything of major concern from the last 12 months, but I would like to more experience in a candidate in order to support. Being only intermittently active until a few months before an RfA is a concern. He was blocked in May 2011 - contributions since then look fine but given that he barely made any edits for three months before April this year, I would also like to see 6 months of solid contributions before supporting. --Michig (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
3. Oppose As per Silktork and Michig and little editing between Sept'11 to April '12 the user joined the project in Feb 2011.The User was indef blocked for May 2011 just over an year ago and for edits like these edit 1edit 2 edit 3edit 4 under pressure and has done admiring well after being unblocked and I really appreciate his resilience commitment and dedication to the project by the user for that.As a Admin the user will come under much greater pressure ,disputes and drama not sure whether the user will be able to handle it and we have seen some of the best admins quit after years due to pressure . The user supports paid editing as per userbox and I am disinclined to support functionaries who will do paid editing as users may come under pressure from the company/client to protect there interests or lose there jobs/Commission if they did not use tools to protect there interests rather than that of Wikipedia .My sincere apologies.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

   I would like to address one point in your oppose. You state that you are "disinclined to support functionaries who will do paid editing" and mention that they will feel pressure to use tools to protect their interests. I feel like you may have been confused into thinking that I am paid myself. I am a completely volunteer editor and have no intentions of ever being paid to edit. My support is related to the idea that editors who are getting paid, if assisted in doing so in an ethical manner, can bring a great amount of information to the encyclopedia. Research suggest that 60% of business articles contain errors. If paid editors can be taught to use the {{Request edit}} template to fix those errors, I see no reason not to support their contributions. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

4. Oppose Per the absurdity and immaturity of setting out to get yourself blocked as a result of a dispute. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

   It was absurd, but it's not unusual for someone in their late teens / early twenties to occasionally behave like that. Some elite head hunters looking to recruit for director and CEO level roles go out of their way to find candidates with such incidents in their youth. That sort of passionate behaviour tends to be driven by the same high levels of emotional energy that correlate with high achievement once the person's matured, as seems to be the case with the candidate. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

   I've seen similar behaviour here from editors much older than that; and wonderfully civil behaviour under pressure from those younger. I don't see how age enters into it, really. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

   But this candidate is still in his youth. Malleus Fatuorum 13:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

5. Oppose basically per concerns expressed by Pharaon and Silktork. Cavarrone (talk) 10:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Oppose Q5 & Q7 have been answered fully. Thanks. These were designed to establish a couple of things; first to see if the candidate knows when to stop flogging a dead horse and second to determine what hastened their decision to present for RFA. The second point has been fully answered by the candidate and supported by their respected nominator. I expect an Admin candidate to have good content development experience, clear knowledge of policy, the support of editors who’s opinions I respect and a manner & style which demonstrates their ability to convince editors to modify their position when dealing with disputes. I encountered this candidate in a discussion relating to a proposition to introduce minimum edit thresholds for RFA candidates. He was a leading advocate. I challenged the proposal, as indicated in Q5. The ability to recognise when you are wrong is important for all of us. Entrenched views are at the heart of most disputes and the ability of an Admin to see all points of view and persuade intransigent editors towards an alternative is essential. That requires sound judgement. If the candidate cannot be convinced to drop their support of such a poor, intellectually deficient idea as minimum edit thresholds I do not consider their judgement to be yet adequate. Leaky Caldron 11:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

   Leaky, I understand that we have different views on a minimum requirement; however, I feel you have overgeneralized your comments. My views are generally not entrenched. I changed my way of viewing AFD's such as the one mentioned and I have always focused on creating compromise. The two recent examples of disputes at Talk:Chelonoidis nigra abingdonii and Talk:Gilgit–Baltistan show exactly the ability to "persuade intransigent editors towards an alternative". I am always willing to modify a view I have if I am sufficiently persuaded. See the requested move at Talk:Hockey at the Commonwealth Games for an example of this. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

   That's fair enough and good to see. However, you are still keen to change RFA in ways I cannot support WP:RfA_reform_2012/Proposal_by_Ryan_Vesey, in particular the introduction of RFA selection clerks in one of your proposals. These are way too bureaucratic for the yield in terms of editor retention of whatever justification is claimed and gives me concern over your judgement. For every editor who contributes to these frequent "RFA is broken" saga's there are likely hundreds who do not agree and I want admin's to concentrate on important issues rather than fringe theories. Leaky Caldron 13:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

   Fair enough Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

7. Oppose per concerns about civility, activity, and maturity as articulated by Pharoah and Silktork. Support of paid editing is also alarming. Shrigley (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

   Oppose reluctantly, mainly per Wisdom89 and Silk Tork. Could certainly see supporting in the future. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC) (moved to support)

8. Oppose due to paid editing userbox and an indef block over drama. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Oppose - Mr. Vesey has made useless comments about me archiving my talkpage. Unacceptable. --J (t) 19:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

   Okay, I'll bite. Can you provide the diff(s) for these "useless comemnts"?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

   Oppose - Not right now - as per the users contribution history and the comments above in the oppose section - come back in six to twelve months and I will reconsider - Youreallycan 22:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Moving to neutral - the user has stood up well under pressure leading me to feel he wouldn't make the wheels drop off and would take his time if consensus is with him. - Youreallycan 18:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

10. Oppose, candidate seems to routinely take a bit too aggressive of a tone, and doesn't seem quite able to tune it down. The incident SilkTork cites is of especial concern, given how recent it is and how far outside the line the candidate's behavior was—it takes a lot to get blocked for general misbehavior or incivility. I'm also very concerned by the userbox explicitly supporting shills, and while I normally figure to "take an opinion as an opinion," supporting a practice which by definition results in non-neutral editing is not something I can get behind. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
11. Oppose You do do some good content work, but I believe that attitude is the most important aspect of an administrator. Having a bad attitude is one of the most common reasons why an admin will get desysopped. And there are certainly better ways to enforce a Wikibreak than to vandalise Wikipedia. That's an example of a rash decision, which is what we also don't want to see from administrators. Minima© (talk) 07:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
12. Oppose Sorry, I can't support lifetime adminship for someone with the May 2011 incident in their history.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

    Interesting to see so many opposing for this reason. Seems to give the lie to the truism that RfA voters will forgive an early mistake as long as the candidate's honest about it. From a review of their contribs, the candidate seems to have matured considerably under the influence of the phenomenal WTT. Do any opposers have any recent diffs to suggest there's ongoing immaturity? Id probably strike my support if so – they seem to have slight deletionists tendencies and I dont usually like to support such candidates unless they are highly reasonable and collegial. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

    I have never made those statements. I believe my stance has been fairly consistant. I'd take a gamble on an editor like this If there was a robust system to remove the adminship short of arbcom if it turned out to be a mistake. With the threshold for removal as high as it is, my standards are equally high.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

    RFA voters can and do forgive a lot, but those diffs were particularly egregious and demonstrate a total lack of the decorum and maturity we expect. Do you really want an admin who throws temper tantrums? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

13. Oppose. Soft on paid editing. I also didn't appreciate having my good-faith contributions to RfA referred to as "ridiculous".[7] Skinwalker (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
14. Oppose Maybe in another 12 months. Too soon for now. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 17:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
15. Oppose for now. From discussions linked above, I see some intemperate language and refusal to accept Wikipedia consensus on issues like WP:OUTCOMES. True, in his response to question 11 he was calm and respectful, but I'm sure he realized that this was a deliberately provocative question designed to see how he would react - similar to a stress interview. An administrator needs to demonstrate a "judicial temperament": the ability to remain calm and uninvolved, to avoid hyperbole and blanket statements, to accept and enforce the rules of the system as given. Based on his contributions as recently as a month or two ago (see question 4), I don't think he has that temperament at this point. (For that matter, I am troubled by that nomination itself, which made less than an hour after the article's creation, and was based on an incorrect belief that the school in question was a primary school, so that he clearly did not follow WP:BEFORE.) I think this editor needs another year or so of seasoning before he is handed the admin tools. --MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC) P.S. I am now trending more toward "neutral", although I will retain my "oppose for now" opinion. After some more review of his edits, the AfD I discussed above appears to have been an anomaly. He mostly spends his time at Articles for Creation, where he is a tireless worker, handling requests and requesters in a professional way. He sometimes shows unsolicited compassion and kindness to newbies, as shown by this reply to a newbie who was having trouble: [8]. He is an important contributor to Wikipedia, which I hope he will continue. And if his RfA does not succeed this time, I hope he will reapply fairly soon. --MelanieN (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

    Oppose, as per Michig, SilkTork and Wisdom89. I'm also rather troubled by the candidate's answers to the optional questions, which seem to display some muddled thinking and an over-eagerness to toe whichever party line he thinks will best suit his goal of becoming an administrator. And the comment about the stress of waiting for an RfA just raises a "WTF?" as far as I'm concerned. Basically I see this candidate as a hat collector. Malleus Fatuorum 12:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

    Where do you get the hat collector impression from? I don't think they've been applying for that many rights and this RfA was nominated by another person. Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) 16:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

    From here: "To expand on that, RfA is stressful and I knew it would be stressful. Postponing it was causing a small amount of stress." To whom other than a hat collector would not having an RfA be stressful? Malleus Fatuorum 18:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

16. Oppose the block just over a year ago doesn't give me much comfort that he will be able to stay in control at all times, but this CSD#A7 nomination from May was placed 1 minute after the article was created and shows that he doesn't always follow the idea of WP:BEFORE (I know that that links to AFD but a similar sentiment is in the CSD instructions) and can be unduly hasty, especially as a ref was provided that proved notability. The-Pope (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
17. Oppose. Ryan is a good-faith editor who shows promise, but like SilkTork, I'm concerned about the lack of experience, especially how it plays into how Ryan engages with other editors. Ryan seems to be shaky on things an admin should have a firm grasp on, like the uses of AfD, while also being unexpectedly firm, and sometimes aggressive, in defense of ideas and positions that are not as clear-cut as he seems to feel they are. My guess is that this is simply a symptom of being a user who's still getting their bearings in a lot of spots, and I suspect that in another RFA 6 months or a year from now, I will find it much easier to support. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
18. Oppose Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive236#How to best go about deleting good edits by a banned user convinced me that Vesey does not place sufficient priority on dealing with sockpuppets, which I believe to be the single largest problem facing Wikipedia.—Kww(talk) 15:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

    It looks like he is saying that they should be removed in general, but that he would restore specific obviously constructive edits on reviewing them and thus accept the associated WP:BURDEN and responsibility associated with restoration. This is consistent with Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

    It also says he thinks it is worth the effort to comb through those contributions to make the determination, which is what I find objectionable. The purpose of allowing editors to restore these edits is to permit people that normally edit an article to not have to jump through hoops to make a change that they agree was obviously good, not to encourage people to trawl through a sockpuppet's edits in order to champion some of them.—Kww(talk) 17:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

19. Oppose Not thrilled about the block or his stance on paid editing. Am also not feeling enthusiastic with his positions at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Excessive_block_of_Kiefer.Wolfowitz. AniMate 17:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
20. Opppose - The block is far to recent, the words used and the lack of cool. Time might heal this wound, but it hasn't happened yet for me. Achowat (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
21. Oppose per AniMate. -Scottywong| communicate _ 18:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
22. Just not convinced that he is ready. Per User:AniMate & User:Fluffernutter, both of whom have summarized my concerns well, as well as the existence Youth Energy Summit! (though I'm glad that he has voted to delete his own article in the AFD). NW (Talk) 18:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
23. Oppose per Malleus and Kww. McJEFF ^(talk) 18:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

    How will that be counted since Malleus changed to Support? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

24. Oppose – This may sound contrite, but being an Administrator here at Wikipedia is No Big Deal. It took me awhile to realize this, but once the light bulb went on, editing here became more of a joy, than a job or responsibility. The common editor on Wikipedia has the privilege and right to be inconsistent with their opinions and voice those changeable opinions through AFD, The Village pump and etc….etc… or the many other discussion pages here on Wikipedia. However, once confirmed as an Administrator that same editor now has a responsibility/duty to understand – disseminate and relay the policies of Wikipedia without opinion in a consistent, understandable manner. After reading your answers to the questions proposed by DGG in question 13 above, I believe you still need more time here at Wikipedia to develop those needed skills to be an Administrator. Good Luck. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
25. Oppose per Silktork, Michig, Fluffernutter. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 19:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
26. Oppose. See ANI and the inappropriate defending of KW. I've also seen these user over time and have not though them admin material. User is relatively inexperienced and should give it at least another year. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
27. Oppose Per SilkTork, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Skinwalker, The-Pope, and ShoesssS. Thanks a lot for going through this process. I hope that you continue to contribute to Wikipedia. I would be happy to support you again in the future if you demonstrate continued commitment to developing Wikipedia content. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
28. Oppose - Less than 12 months experience is too little. Not now, perhaps later. Seems like a sensible user who be later be trusted with the mop, after more experience. ~ GabeMc (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

    Wow, standards have certainly risen since I first started editing Wikipedia in 2007/2008. Back then, six months was seen as sufficient and some of the old timers were getting worried that even that was too high. NW (Talk) 21:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

29. Candidate has done good work at WP:WPAFC but I worry that recent events suggest that he may be sympathetic to disruptive or uncivil editors — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

    You may like to consider correcting your English, so that your opposition is comprehensible. What exactly are you worried about? Malleus Fatuorum 07:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

    Fixed, thanks. Hopefully clearer now — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

30. Oppose Not quite ready yet. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 07:38, July 4, 2012 (UTC)
31. Oppose per the block and his defence of uncivil users. Epbr123 (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
32. Oppose The candidate seems too inexperienced. Warden (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
33. Oppose (Moving Kiefer.Wolfowitz from support to oppose per Change my vote from support to oppose -- Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

    Kiefer has asked me to clarify that he moved to oppose because I supported a block based on events that occurred after the block not based on events prior to the block and that this "showed a lack of appreciation for procedural propriety". He has also asked me to discuss the fairness of considering events that occurred after the block in determining a block. I'll use the talk page for this. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

34. Oppose I agree with all of the above. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
35. Oppose For the reasons Fluffernutter has given, plus I was rather unimpressed with the response to Q5 on RFA reform. I'm happy to reconsider in the future though. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
36. Oppose Q11 Arcandam (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
37. Oppose It is with great reluctance that I change my support to opposition, as I still have a great deal of admiration for Ryan's work, and he has many qualities which I think would be great assets to an administrator. However, as this discussion has continued, more and more concerns have been brought up, and I have gradually become less secure in my support for him. I will not list all the concerns I have had, as most of them are already documented on this page, but I will mention a few. Ryan's handling of the AN/I discussion on Kiefer.Wolfowitz showed, in my opinion, a fundamental failure to understand a number of points which are essential for an administrator to understand. For example, he did not seem to fully grasp the need to base decisions on the whole of the relevant history, not just the current issue. In the same discussion he showed a quite mistaken belief that, when an editor has had a string of short blocks for the same kind of thing, and shows no sign of intending to change his/her decision, another, even shorter block, will be effective in stopping the behaviour, and therefore there is no advantage in a longer one. An administrator with such mistaken views of how human beings work would not be an effective one. On another AN discussion concerning reverting of edits by banned users, he was completely dismissive of the views of those he disagreed with, calling them "ridiculous", and showing no willingness or no ability (I can't say which) to consider their point of view. This approach is not acceptable for an administrator, who must be able to consider all sides of an argument. Then there is Ryan's statement on this page "it is highly inappropriate for you to attack a person's belief system, whether they be religious or otherwise, anywhere on Wikipedia and I respectfully ask for you to strike that section from your question". The remark he referred to was inappropriate because it was irrelevant, but it was not an attack. An administrator, who has the power to perform such actions as summarily deleting a page as an attack page, and indefinitely blocking users for personal attacks, must be able to distinguish an attack from an negative opinion which is not an attack. Then we have tagging a new stub article for speedy deletion within a minute of creation instead of waiting a while to see if content would be added, which does not inspire faith that, as an admin, Ryan would not rush in and delete in such a situation. As I said above, these are not the only concerns that I have, but they are enough, I think, to indicate that I think there are various areas where Ryan either lacks an understanding of points which are central to administrative work or behaves in ways that would not be acceptable for an administrator. Consequently, with great reluctance, I feel I have to oppose. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

    For what it's worth, the IP's question was removed twice by other editors and my response was based on the original. It was only changed in an attempt to keep it from being removed. Ryan Vesey Review me! 11:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

    Thank you for the clarification, Ryan. Under the circumstances, my comment about that is invalid. This is a good example of why it is not acceptable change an editor's comments in a discussion after others have responded to them. I will think about whether that is enough to persuade me to drop my "oppose" or not. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

    I better clarify then. Please note that the comment was changed before I posted my response so I did make the decision for my comment to be based on the most recent comment by the editor even though he had changed it. First, the wording of the comment was the same but the meaning was unchanged. It was clearly modified only in an attempt to keep it from being removed. Second, the editor was asking a question on paid editing but chose to include an unrelated side-comment about my religion. There are some valid questions that could be asked based on my religion, like do I have a POV as a result. The IP didn't do that. In response to that question, and to clear up any concerns on that, I most definitely do have a POV. I can write an article on an organization or a religious person easily; however, when it comes to religious ideas (or secular ideas that disagree with my religious ideas) I have a POV. As such, I made a decision long ago to completely avoid editing those articles. I recognize that POV and choose to abstain from using it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

    I'd like to add a bit here, too, although at this point I'm not sure how "clear" it's getting. :-) As I recall, the original question by the IP was off the wall and completely inappropriate. I removed it. The IP re-added it, and I believe Salvio removed it (I'm going by memory here). Mixed into all this - and things often move a bit too quickly on Wikipedia in these sorts of situations - Ryan asked Salvio and me to let the question stand because he wanted to answer it. I don't remember whether Ryan asked in relation to the "final" version of the question or not. I reluctantly acceded to Ryan's wishes, even though all my instincts screamed disruptive troll, which I think subsequent posts by the IP confirmed. With that background and considering the question itself, which was still bizarre in its final form, I personally wouldn't base any part of a decision here on that thread, even though I understand that whatever Ryan says, even in the midst of such disruption, is still technically fair game.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

    Mainly it told me that Ryan was willing to tolerate mud slinging while trying to answer a question, not for the benefit of the IP but for the benefit of anyone else who might glean some information from the exchange. My experience has been that those are tools that will be handy once he gets the admin bit, and is another point in his favor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

38. Oppose Silktork said it better than I could. That combined with some of the other comments and things I have seen make me have to oppose. -DJSasso (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
39. Oppose - There are a number of editors I respect who are supporting the candidate, but in the end my feelings of unease carry my vote to oppose. The block, the examples of ill-temperment, the paid-contributor box etc. are all strikes, and when you add in the fairly short period of activity on Wikipedia then it becomes easy for me to say that the candidate should not be asked by the community to serve as an admin at this time. My feelings well could change in a subsequent Rfa in 6-12 months, but for now I cannot support, even knowing that this close to the end of the Rfa and with the tally at the low end of the discretionary zone, that my vote is crucial. I do thank the candidate for his willingness to serve and his work on the project. Jusdafax 23:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
40. Oppose on the basis of candidate's support for paid editing and all the drama caused by the indef block. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
41. Oppose My concerns have been adequately summarized by silktork.Suraj T 21:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
42. Oppose - per my criteria. (And I think User:JamesBWatson, among others, made some rather discerning observations as well.) Signing here to resolve a bot issue. - jc37 00:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

    When I started out, I thought this was going to be an easy "support". However, further investigation changed that.

    In this venue, I personally don't care about your personal beliefs concerning paid editing, or rfa reform, or the future of wikipedia, or for that matter, about your religious beliefs. While I suppose it could be argued that they may say something about you as a person, they don't directly tell me much of anything else useful for this discussion.

    And being previously blocked doesn't phase me, presuming that your edit history shows having positively, constructively, learned from the experience.

    And so, I'm more concerned about your edit history, and how what you have done and said may help indicate whether I feel comfortable with the idea of trusting you with the tools and responsibilities of adminship.

    While there is definitely some good there, and you're clearly an enthusiastic editor, I am not seeing trends that I would expect to see from someone who is ready to take on the responsibilities of the tasks of adminship.

    There are primarily 5 things most admins typically do, regardless of what they may initially intend to do: block/unblock; protect/unprotect/editprotected; delete/undelete/view deleted; deal with edit warring; and assess consensus. (Though each tends to find their own niche, and additional ways they prefer to help.)

    So to say that you might block "vandals" but no one else, just is very unlikely to be the situation. To say you'll only close uncontentious delete discussions, but will help with CSD, and so on. Because Wikipedians are always looking for an "uninvolved" admin, by definition, as an admin you are going to be helping out in areas that you never had thought you would.

    To deal with edit warring, you have to assess a situation. To close a discussion, you have to assess consensus. And thoroughly understand the various policies behind all of those. "Being bold but not reckless" is just as (if not even more) important for admins and applies in spades.

    And as admins, we live in histories. Page histories. Edit histories. While mistakes happen all the time (admins being human after all), being conscientious and as well informed as possible before hitting submit, can tend to help minimise that.

    And I really don't think you understand when IAR should and should not be applicable. For one thing, it has absolutely nothing to do with whether a situation is "controversial".

    And your phrasing here: "A common usage is closing a deletion discussion early when the article is clearly unworthy of Wikipedia and doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria." Setting aside the "unworthy" comment for a moment, the point of a SNOW close has more to do with community consensus than with "unworthiness". And several of your comments make me wonder if you understand the concept of "local consensus".

    Quoting from the AfD mentioned in question #4: "The existence of this article does not improve Wikipedia." - This sentence just goes directly against our mission statement. (Not to mention, WP:BEFORE came immediately to mind when reading that sentence.) An article may be poorly sourced, An article may violate our Notability standards for inclusion. But it's not up to us to decide whether particular information "improves Wikipedia". Not only is that subjective, and directly violates NPOV/V/OR, but imnsho, that's censorship. And I sincerely would not trust the deletion tools in your hands if you hold the perspective that we ever determine the "worth" of information on Wikipedia.

    I also didn't like that your first inclination when looking at an edit war was to look for "vandalism". Edit warring editors can be well-meaning editors merely with a difference of oppinion concerning the content in question. I have been concerned for some time that so-called "vandal fighters" are calling unsourced content vandalism, and auto-templating warnings to such editors. That just bites well-intended editors.

    And to note about others' comments (without speaking to the specific content of that particular situation): it doesn't take "balls" to comment against an admin doing the often thankless and at times unpopular task of enforcing Wikipedia's policies. The reverse is true. It's very easy to speak out against others. People do it on the internet all the time. If anything, I was impressed with placing an "oppose" on this rfa for a blocked editor. Fairly common practice when dealing with time delimited discussions like RfA, which could have been left for someone else to do. But instead Ryan added it himself

    You'll notice, while there are a few quotes, there are no diffs. So everything I am asserting, should be taken with a grain of salt. It's my opinion, based upon what I have seen. I would hope that others would be looking just as diligently over your contribs to come to their own assessment of whether they feel the community should entrust you with adminship.

    So anyway, I'm sorry, but I must oppose. - jc37 21:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

    @Jc37: I don't think the statement "The existence of this article does not improve Wikipedia." necessarily goes against our mission statement. I can think of plenty of counter examples. Articles that are blatantly inaccurate damage our reputation. Copyright violations, attack pages, and unsourced/inaccurate BLPs can put us in legal jeopardy. Bazillions of articles about non-notables aren't helpful either. I could go on. Of course, I don't know the context of the statement or the article Ryan was talking about, so I may be completely off-base when it comes to specifics. Perhaps you were talking only about articles that didn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion? ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

    And every one of your examples deals with questions of verifiable reliable sources. We do not assess "worthiness" of content. We are not censors. - jc37 00:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

43. I've been sitting on the fence until now, because I do believe you are a valuable contributor and I would like to support your candidacy; however, I have a couple of concerns which give me pause and so I have to end up in this section. Basically, I agree with SilkTork, Pharaoh and many others and think that you do not appear to be ready to be an admin just yet. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
44. Needs more seasoning, more - broader experience, and quite a bit more distance from that block before becoming an admin. Courcelles 23:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
45. Oppose now Candidate will be a good admin in due course, but I have not seen sufficient acknowledgment that some issues are a problem, and that the other side has some good points. One minor issue is the use of the "I support paid editing" userbox, as if a slogan is appropriate to dismiss those who are concerned about the long term effects on a volunteer community of paid advocacy (there is no problem with anyone, paid or not, correcting a mistake in a company article—just do it—the problem is obviously something else). A more substantial issue was raised by Kww above. Long term abusers are a signficant and growing problem, and those who loudly assert their right to restore edits by a banned user are missing the point, and possibly are not sufficiently experienced in that area. Of course material is good regardless of its author, and an editor with experience editing the article concerned can later reflect on what should occur. However, combatively proposing that it is good to undo someone who has reverted a banned user is not satisfactory for an admin who needs to know how to encourage good editors and discourage bad. The best way to ensure a banned user returns to make more trouble is to loudly defend some of their edits—if a revert really bothers you, put it on your to do list, read about the topic, and return to improve the article in a couple of weeks. Encouraging banned users also drives away good editors who work in that area. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
46. Indef block in his past; eight edits in Q1 of 2012, so really only three months of recent experience to go on; and fully engaged with obviously unproductive flamebait in Q11 of this RFA. I try to stay away from RFA nowadays, but I think there's a high probability that this candidate would do harm if given the bit. Townlake (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
47. For reasons similar to Fluffernutter, sorry, but thanks for all the good work you are doing as an editor. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
48. Oppose - While I don't think there's any fundamental flaw in this editor, there's simply not enough experience (less than 2 years is fast under the best of circumstances) and given the relatively recent issues this nomination is premature. Shadowjams (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral leaning support The May '11 block doesn't bother me. I am sure it was built out of frustration and lesson has been learned. I trust Worm that Turned when he says this is a trustworthy editor who would make a great admin. What holds me back from supporting is that the user has barely edited from Aug '11 to April '12 and only recently returned to major editing. I'd like to see consistent contributions that show a bit of the dedication necessary to be a sysop. I'd support in 3 months.--v/r - TP 13:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

   My job forces me to have irregular schedules, so my edit vary by time of year, so that doesn't bother me so terribly. That was brought up in my RfA as well, but quickly shot down. I edited more just before and after being an admin, due to a willingness to commit more to the project. I even took a long Wikibreak midway into my Wikicareer with no edits logged in. His edits are a shorter time period, but no more variable than my own [9]. I see your point which is valid, but I just think that variability is common as we all have other obligations. And I'm not sure if we will keep him as much as support him ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

   True, which is why I haven't opposed over it. Also, thanks, fixed.--v/r - TP 14:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

   Hi TParis, it is fine that you are in this column, but I thought I'd use this as an opportunity to explain my disappearance. I did go through my freshman year of college this past year, so I made a personal decision to avoid editing Wikipedia as much as possible. It wasn't until April that I found a way to fit in editing time with all of my schoolwork. In any case,I'm sure my contribution rate will decrease in September, but the decrease will be much smaller than it was the year before. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

   His stopping editing is a mature and intelligent use of time, because he will learn more on campus than on Wikipedia. It's good to have mature persons who view Wikipedia as a hobby, one among many, rather than as a surrogate for social & intellectual life. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

   Heh, I didn't learn much in my freshman year in college. Hopefully, Ryan's experience was different. I don't think it matters that much why someone takes a break from Wikipedia. We should all do so if we feel the need. However, one's edit history at RfA, including breaks, is still relevant, and how much it matters is up to the judgment of the !voter.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

   I have absolutely no problem with an editor having other interests and consequently large gaps in their edit history. But it does mean that the events of May 2011 are still in the last twelve months of the candidate's contributions. I'd like to see a longer subsequent editing history before I'd be comfortable supporting. ϢereSpielChequers 13:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

2. Plain Neutral, Don't Ask I'd better ask then change my mind (or not, due to personal time conflict) TruPepitoM (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

   Sorry, I am going to ask. What the hell does that mean? Joefromrandb (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

   I'm going to bite my lip due to your comment. No offense, just action. I would like to ask him about something but due to personal reasons I won't. TruPepitoM (talk) 10:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

   Neutral, substantially as per TParis. May reassess. --John (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

3. I like the paid editing userbox. While I am more of a traditionalist, I think Wikipedia needs progressive users. I'm quite concerned about the Youth Energy Summit! article. It's icky. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

   I am so concerned with that article that I have just nominated it at AfD. I am surprised that any experienced editor would have thought it an adequately important topic for an article here. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

   I spent some time researching, and decided to add my !vote for deletion of Youth Energy Summit!, that being said, I would like to address a few things. First, I started the article a few days after I started editing and I moved it within the first two weeks. I would not have been considered "experienced" at the time and was unaware of the extent of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I also didn't know how to write a good article. In addition, I'm a volunteer, just like everybody else. That article was written in my early stages on Wikipedia, and I was focused on other things later in my Wikipedia career. The quality and notability of the article were never brought up before, so I had no reason to address it. It is late here, so I apologize for not addressing the questions asked by LuK3 and yourself in a more timely manner, but will attempt to respond as soon as I have a chance tomorrow. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

   I'm dismayed that you didn't return to this article once you gained experience—perhaps you simply forgot that it existed—but just because the quality and notability issues had not been noticed by anyone else certainly does not excuse them. I'm sure I'm misunderstanding your statement, because I don't think you think that one only needs to address obvious concerns if they are raised by others, but that is how it reads to me right now. I'm loathe to add that it should have been at the least something to check on before the RfA because a good deal of RfA (and adminship in general) consists of politicking and the fact that this article was left in its neglected state until this week does not reflect well on your ability to prepare for a critical review, which is sometimes unfortunately and also rightfully a major part of adminship as well. I like you, Vesey; you're intelligent and you seemed slightly more clueful than the rest of the noobs when I first saw your signature popping up. You should write more. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

4. Neutral, Ryan is enthusiastic, his intentions are in the right place, and he generally makes intelligent and generally well reflected contributions to various discussions - many of which I appreciate - although this thread strikes me as being very slightly presumptive; it is however a year ago - I would hope that Ryan would check more on the background of users before engaging in such dialogue. However - and I may be completely wrong - his engagement in meta areas, especially on adminship issues, and the 'I would like to be an admin' userbox evokes a possible concern that he may have been working towards adminship since joining the project. While he has a total about nine months of truly solid, active editing, although the May issue is about a year old, it gives me pause. Some of the opposers make valid points, especially MelanieN . I am also concerned about the Youth Energy Summit!. I'm not going to oppose, but I cannot support due to the failure to meet points 16 & 20 of my criteria. With all due respect to the nominator, the fact that is is a 'neutral' vote! and neither an oppose nor a support, should not be taken as discouraging, and I hope that Ryan will continue to do great work. Should this RfA not meet the community's approval, I would nevertheless overlook those points in my criteria if there is an improvement over the next six months, when I would be happy to support a re-run. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

   Neutral - Leaning Support While I find some of the opposes persuasive, I also feel that his past conduct isn't necessarily worse than some things we see currently. Lack of activity is an issue, and I do have concerns about "hat collecting." That said, I've also been impressed by the user's composure and willingness to put forward proposals for solutions to some of this community's major issues. Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Moving to support. Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

   Neutral - leading Oppose - Looks like a NOT YET situation from where I'm sitting. I'm also curious about the blot on the block log and have posed that above... I did like the answer to question 4, but I'm not getting a steady and consistent vibe here. Carrite (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

   Carrite, you asked question 17 above but before the guy even get the chance to response you cast your vote. Don't you think you should at least give him the chance to answer your question before voting? Or perhaps you've already made up your mind?Tamsier (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

   Laying in as neutral is not "voting." I'd say "Neutral leaning oppose" on a NOT YET basis is pretty much where I remain, however, despite the excellent answer to 17 above — this relating to a rather incoherent trying-to-have-it-both-ways line taken on the K-Wolf ANI incident of this past week. Carrite (talk) 01:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

5. Neutral I was thinking of opposing, but his good responses to my questions convinced me otherwise. I was also impressed by his calm response to what I regard as an outrageous personal attack on his religion, even by the relaxed standard of RfA debates. I agree with some of the other editors here who have said that a RfA in 6 months or so is likely to be successful. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Neutral for now I have to admit, having seen the editor in "the right way" at "the right places", I did expect to support. As per DGG above, I was reasonably impressed with the handling of the ridiculous faith-based attack - that attitude will work well as an admin. I'm not quite prepared to support based on length-of-time and overall contributions yet. More similar work over a few months (including both automated an non-automated edits) will likely lead to a full-bore support (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Neutral The response to my question demonstrates a lack of understanding of WP:FRINGE guidelines, particularly this part: "it shouldn't be mentioned too heavily in the main article if it isn't notable enough for its own". In fact fringe theories should not necessarily be mentioned at all in the main articles if they aren't notable and even if they are notable that would most likely be undue promotion of a fringe theory: for example the Earth article does not mention modern fringe beliefs in a flat earth (while it does mention historical beliefs). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

   If there are reliable modern sources arguing for a flat Earth theory then their omission is a weakness of the Earth article, not of the candidate's answer. Malleus Fatuorum 10:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

   Actually no. The flat earth society is a fringe view which has no weight to be mentioned in the Earth article. It's also the standard example of Undue weight, see WP:UNDUE: For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to the Flat Earth belief.. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

   Actually what's clear is that you have no idea what you're talking about, and are incapable of independent thought. Malleus Fatuorum 10:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

   Not including the flat earth belief in the article is the very example of undue weight in policy. I suggest you look at my comment, and your reply. Then I suggest you refactor your own comment accordingly. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

   I suggest that you re-read the Earth article, which does link to flat Earth theories, but your question was about modern flat Earth theories. BTW, your pretentious word salads do not make make your argument more convincing. Malleus Fatuorum 10:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

   Cheers for the personal attacks (I suppose this is consistent with your belief that anyone who mentions AGF should be blocked [10]). I specifically said modern fringe beliefs in a flat earth at all points, and then quoted policy which also says modern fringe beliefs on a flat earth are undue for the earth article. Consistent with this, no mention of the modern fringe theory is mentioned in the earth article, instead only the historical belief is mentioned as I noted in my initial comment. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

8. Neutral- I am satisfied with his work, but concerned that he lacks experience. I am willing to forgive the blocking incident, as it was over a year ago. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
9. — Ched :  ?  14:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
10. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
11. I find myself echoing the opinions of Bzweebl. Good contributions, but I'd prefer more experience. Spencer^T♦C 01:41, 7 July 2012 (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.