final (14/13/2); Withdrawn by candidate 06:32 25 August2008 (UTC)
RyRy (talk·contribs) - When I first looked at RyRy I had some major concerns. First, when he first started contributing to Wikipedia he did everything wrong. He treated Wikipedia as MySpace. He was active with Sharkface's Award Center---something I never liked because in my opinion rewarded quantity over quality. He went through admin coaching where the coaching was basically a "mock RfA"---a form of coaching that I don't personally like. He wisely realized that he wasn't ready for coaching and termed that program seeking instead to be adopted. About a month ago, he asked me to be his coach, which I refused because he didn't need it and because it would be seen as Gaming the System.
During his "mock RfA" he was criticized heavily for his AFD and CSD activity. Those are two of my pet areas. CSD in particularly has the opportunity to harm the project if done recklessly or overly aggressively. As a result I spent a fair amount of time reviewing his edits in these categories. He has a lot of articles that were speedily deleted, while there were some areas where I differed with his rationale, there were none that I considered blatantly incorrect. That being said, the thing that I always like to see in a speedy deleter is somebody who is willing to try to salvage an article---RyRy has done that (or at least tried) on several occasions. As for his AfD's? His earlier AfD's were plagued with poor reasoning---namely "Per Nom" rationale. But since that issue was brought up, he's been making more contributions of substance. On numerous occasions he has worked at saving articles by either copy-editing them or finding sources to validate notability.
The thing that pushes me into noming him however is the fact that he clearly acts like an admin already. Being an admin is not about a few buttons or glory, but rather the respect and trust of the community. It is also about serving the community. The people I find it easiest to nominate are those who act like an admin and are perceived by the community to be admins already. RyRy is both. RyRy regularly makes non-admin closures on AFD's and I haven't seen any where I disagree with his rationale to do so. He is also a regularly contributor to AIV. While most non-admin's limit their contributions to AIV to asking for administrative action, RyRy goes a step beyond. He investigates reports and summarizes his findings for other admins. If he sees a case where somebody has been refered to AIV incorrectly he either fixes the report or removes it as he deems it appropriate. Then there is his work at DYK. Here again he is regularly making recommendations and updating the template that goes on the main page. This doesn't mention his work at the Help Desk, ANI, various baseball projects, Peer Review, or Copy-Editing requests. (We'll forgive him for being a Red Sox Fan.)
Co-nomination by Useight
I've known RyRy for most of the time he's been on Wikipedia, and, wow, I've been very impressed by his growth. As Balloonman has mentioned, RyRy's start here was a bit rocky, but he soon found his way around. As for the objective report, RyRy has logged nearly 17,000 edits, which include over 6,000 to the mainspace. Much of his work there has been to baseball-related articles, including doing most of the work getting Baseball uniform from this to its present state. RyRy also does much work in the DYK realm (a list of his hooks can be found here). He has also used his prowess there to help other editors accomplish goals, such as helping Keeper76 with improving Randy Ruiz, a conversation describing this work can be found here.
RyRy is also extremely active at AIV. According to wannabe_kate he has 256 edits there. As Balloonman said above, these are not all just standard vandal reports, he also does a lot of clerking. Some recent examples of his work there are: this, this, this, and this. RyRy is sufficiently familiar with policy to know when to block and when to decline blocking. As for CSD, RyRy has just over 1000 deleted edits, which, unfortunately, can only be examined by admins, however, sifting through his speedy tags there, I am confident he would know the appropriate instances to speedy delete articles. Overall, I believe RyRy to be knowledgeable, communicative, and civil enough to make an excellent administrator. Useight (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Balloonman, Useight, I'm flattered by your nominations. I'm honored and happy to accept, hoping that this may help me serve our community in the best way I possibly can. In my experience in participating in RfAs and watching administrators and what they do as a Wikipedian, I have learned that adminship is primarily about trust. It's now up to the community to decide if they trust me enough for adminship. Regards, RyRy (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: As an administrator, I do plan to work in various areas of Wikipedia. But I would think that my main area of administrative work would be WP:DYK. DYK is the section of the main page that is updated most frequently and is the best chance that many contributors have of seeing their work highlighted on the main page, and the longer there is between updates, the fewer articles get picked, so I plan to be there ready to update DYK, rather than always having to ask administrators to update it. It has been frustrating to have prepared the update when administrators are not online when I am, and those administrators who are online usually don't know or have little to no experience with updating DYK. As a non-administrator, I have done much work in this area for months ever since June or July of 2008 I believe. My work in this area includes moving verified hooks from the suggestions page to the next update preparing them to be updated to the Main Page by an administrator. I have also been reviewing hook suggestions for quite a while as a non-administrator, which I believe was my first involvement with the DYK process besides creating, expanding and nominating DYKs of my own. I also have experience in doing article talk page credits as well if administrators ask me to do it of if an administrator forgets to do article talk page credits. I'm online very much of the day, so if administrators are not online when the time comes to update DYK, I'll probably be the one updating it myself if this RfA is successful. I'll be able to have the access editing the fullyprotectedDYK template that leads to the Main Page as an administrator, and I do believe that DYK needs more updaters, as I can only think of 3-4, maybe 5 "regulars" which is not enough, IMO. I've watched administrators update the DYK section numerous times, and I don't think I will have any problems updating it myself from what I have learned from them.
Besides DYK, I plan to have much involvement in WP:AIV, blocking users and IPs (IPs not indef though since they can change from time to time) for an appropriate amount of time who have vandalized or who are just spammers. I have much experience in AIV, reporting vandals and even doing some clerking. Looking at my edit count, I have over 300 edits to AIV. I believe my clerking and reporting are reasonably accurate when doing so as a non-admin. My AIV clerking work has taught me whether or not certain reports should be blocked or not which is something that will help me in judging and deciding a block.
WP:XFD, particularly WP:AFD would also be an area I'll sure be working at as an administrator. As a non-admin, I have done numerous non-administrative closures, various ones which I believe have been accurate these past months. I have also participated in AfDs myself from time-to-time, always pointing to Wikipedia policies, though many months ago I used to say only "per nom" or something similar like what Balloonman stated in his nom. Closing AfD debates as "delete" as decided by community consensus would be an area at AfD that I would be able to have access to, having the "delete" button. This certainly takes good judgement to do, and I believe I have the experience and judgement to participate in this area more often having access to the "delete" tool. Of course, I will continue closing debates as "keep" when appropriate if there are any when I come to check like I used to as a non-admin. I will always keep in mind that consensus can change when thinking of closing an AfD that has run a certain time, whether the closure would be "keep" "merge, "delete", etc.
My last area I would be involved in would be WP:PERM requests. I have had and used the account creation and rollback tool myself for quite a while without a problem (besides the problems I had when I was new here to be mentioned below), and I'm sure I know when to give certain permissions to users who request it.
I'm sure I'll be able to spread my areas when I have more experience being an administrator on the English Wikipeda on areas such as WP:RFPP, CAT:CSD (areas I don't have as much experience in as the above) ect. But for now, the above, bolded areas are where I will be participating in once I do become one, if that were to happen and if the community decides to make me an admin. Balloonman has also covered most of what I do now. Apologies for the long answers. I'm one of those people who like making long comments. :-)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I do believe I have made good contributions in a many areas. I'm very proud of the WP:DYK articles I have created/expanded. Currently, I have created/expanded a total of 16 DYK articles, all of which I am very proud of (they can be found here). Why? Because each time a DYK of mine, or any DYK for that matter, is updated onto the Main Page (T:DYK which transcludes onto the Main Page), it lets people learn a fascinating and interesting fact about someone, something, somewhere, ect. We are here to build an encyclopedia and spread the knowledge of what we write to others, and the "Did you know..." section helps just that. I have also been contributing to the WP:DYKprocess, as mentioned above in Q1, which I believe has helped improve that area of Wikipedia, helping setting up the next update. I'm an active contributer to WP:BASEBALL, as I write and improve many articles related to that topic, baseball, most of which have appeared on the Main Page as DYKs. I also do enjoy helping others, so I do contribute to the Wikipedia:Help desk. Again, why? Because helping others improves others as Wikpedians. I wouldn't have come this far if it wasn't for the help and constructive criticism I have received in the past, and I thank those whoever has helped me in the past. Anyway, I do believe that many of my contributions have helped Wikipedia, and I will sure continue doing that as an administrator. More information on what I do around Wikipedia can easily be found on my user page, under the "Here on the English Wikipedia" section.
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: Very true, I have been in conflicts over editing in the past, which has lowered down these past few months. As what Balloonman stated, I was "doing everything wrong" (well not "everything") as a beginning Wikipedian. He basically has covered most of what I did wrong in the past. Though, I believe I have improved significantly since then. Some major conflicts that I remember of are my misuses in rollback months back. I have had it revoked a few times and I been granted it a few more times also. It was revoked generally because I misused it and that I didn't know clearly what vandalism is. Though, User:Keeper76 was the last who granted me rollback, and I have not misused it ever since. I never did ask for rollback the the last time it was revoked, and I learned a lot more regarding what is vandalism and what is not vandalism until a few admins offered it to me. In the future, I will do my best to watch myself with the bigger admin tools which can harm Wikipedia than rollback could. Another issue was a the copyright violation i committed which did cause a big problem for me, though, I have learned since then, and have been writing articles on my own ever since, reaching 16 DYKs. Overall, I have made mistakes in the past, much less recently, and I will do my best as an administrator not to make those mistakes and any further ones, that is, if the community decides to make me one.
Answer the following optional questions as if you were an admin.
4. You get an email from the subject of an article saying that the article about him presents him in an extremely unfair light. You have no familiarity with the article's history or the subject and the article is mostly sourced. What action (if any) do you take?
5. 3 users (User:A, User:B, and User:C, who is an admin) are engaged in an edit war over 3 separate articles. Users B and C are both reverting to the same revisions while User:A reverts to his favored ones. User:A has made 8 reversions, User:B has made 4, User:C has made 5. None of them are using the talk page. What action (if any) do you take?
6. While looking through CAT:RFU, you find a user who was blocked 24 hours for incivility and attacks for calling another user a "shitfaced cocksucker." However, the user who he attacked was a vandal, and a sockpuppet of a banned user. What action (if any) do you take?
Looking at what has come up in the oppose section, I'm going to withdraw this RfA now. Being general, not enough time has passed yet for me since the recent copyvio issues, rollback issues, myspace concerns, etc. and I haven't done much content writing. I can already see where this is heading towards. I thank the supporters for thinking I would be a good admin, and I thank the opposers for the advice they have given me. I also thank the nominators, Ballonman and Useight, for nominating me in the first place. Whoever knows how to close RfAs properly may do so at this moment. Many thanks, RyRy (talk) 06:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support Yes, I get the first support! Anyways, I have always found RyRy to be a very friendly and helpful editor. He has great knowledge of policy and Wiki-Markup. When I first met him, I though he already was an admin! Since then he has learned from his mistakes and gotten even better. He has excellent WP:DYK work, very good article work and designed or redesigned multiple user pages. I have great respect for him and have no doubt he will be a great administrator.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 02:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support - I've been waiting for this. WP:CLUE abounds. Wisdom89(T / C) 02:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Sigh. I'm sorry RyRy, but I'm forced to abstain due to copyright violations that I wasn't aware of. I feel very strongly about this. Wisdom89(T / C) 04:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support - I know he'll make a great admin and would never abuse the tools. Obviously, support. jj137(talk) 02:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Problems previously? Sure. Reformed? Absolutely. I can’t believe how much RyRy has come on over the past few months, I really can’t. I thought he might be on his way out, yet he’s turned it around completely. He’s got the experience to make an amazing admin here, and he truly cares about the right things here. Good luck. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 02:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Those who know me know that I don't often comment on RfAs anymore. In this case, I am honored to encourage my friends and colleagues to look past Ryan's early indiscretions and consider allowing him access to the administrator tools. Ryan has my confidence and support. When first I met RyRy, it was in answer to a complaint left on my talk page by another user that I respect greatly. There's no question that RyRy's start was... shaky... but Ryan has my full and complete confidence now. That's not to say that he'll never make a mistake - we all do - but experience has proven that Ryan works hard to overcome those mistakes and to make them right. He has demonstrated an amazing willingness to listen to feedback - both positive and negative - and to learn from it. Further, he has demonstrated a willingness to humble himself and admit his own errors. - Philippe 02:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Support as co-nom. Useight (talk) 02:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Support no problems here. - Icewedge (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Support. Not sure I've seen any Wikipedian mature and grow as RyRy has. Tanǀ39 02:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Support - You meet my criteria, a lovely person. Not sure if you have any GA's but your 16 DYK's make up for that. — Realist2 02:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support: You would make a wonderful admin, and you are already a wonderful editor. Even more, you made my userpage pretty! Leonard(Bloom) 02:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC) *Note: Changed to NeutralLeonard(Bloom) 04:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Everything, I stress, everything, Philippe says is true for me as well, right up to "Those who know me know that I don't often comment on RfAs anymore." Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support I have had the pleasure to learn from RyRy, and all I can say is he will make a fine admin.--LAAFan 02:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Super Strong Support Ryan has been one of the nicest and most thoughtful users I have ever met. You clearly show a dedication to the DYK field, with 16 of them and an ever persistant will to make sure that all the articles are acceptable for the main page. Furthermore, you have shown an amazing increase in maturity since I first met you (when I guess I was also sorta immature.) Your CSD taggings are, of course, top notch. With the extra tabs, you would only increase you productivity as an edity, not decrease it. I've been waiting for this moment for a long long time. Kudos for being an honor to work with. --I'm an Editorofthewiki 02:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am having a dinner party tomorrow night and I wanted to buy some Soylent Green for the appetizers, and...oh, wrong queue. SupportEcoleetage (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
How much longer are you going to do that? :-P —Animum (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Trust me, I got a million of 'em! :-O Ecoleetage (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Support – For two reasons: 1) RyRy has definitely improved and shows exemplary judgement from my interactions with him; 2) I just decided I also need some Soylent Green, so I thought I'd come to this store, but then I realized I really wanted some trout. Some dude decided to make a joke, so I made good use of it. Eh, #1 is really the only one that matters. —Animum (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support I've known RyRy for most of my time on Wikipedia and my interactions with him have always been positive. I think he'll be a great admin. Good luck man. Burner0718Jibba Jabba! 03:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I've thought a fair while about this one, as I've periodically intersected with RyRy since his early days, and I generally respect the noms' judgement. This RFA probably will pass, but I can't support it. As Balloonman says, RyRy had a wretched start on Wikipedia (this IMO embodied everything that was worst about the "Barnstar Cabal"); also as Balloonman says, RyRy has turned around and has recently been a productive editor. But (you knew there was a "but" coming) while I think he's definitely improved immeasurably as an editor, I don't think his qualities translate very well into what I expect in an admin. One of his own userboxes sums up my main problem: "This user has made over 17,000 contributions to Wikipedia, over 5000 of which were to articles". I assume most of those reading this (and any closing crat) already known my "everything else only exists to support the mainspace" position; one of the instant warning flags to me is any editor for whom user talk contribs > mainspace contribs. I can overlook this (and have) in users where there are substantial mainspace contributions to back them up – however, I can't really see any here. As RyRy said in an RFA a couple of weeks ago, "I would like to see at least 3000-4000 quality edits"; while I think that's a very high threshold (as I've discussed with him previously), it's not one he meets himself. Ironically, the second half of Balloonman's nomination statement pretty much sums up what, to me, the problem will be here; while I have no significant doubt about RyRy's technical ability or good faith, I think he has far too strong an interest in Wikipedia procedures and policies, and in the letter of the law over common sense. We have far too many admins who see the medium as the message and throw themselves into technical arguments about the exact interpretation of policy, and I honestly believe that if given the buttons at this point RyRy will become another. – iridescent 02:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I also agree with what Iridescent says. Additionally, I can't stop feeling like everything RyRy says lately is carefully planned to not ruffle feathers, to impress people, and to set himself up for adminship, such as this. It feels too canned and not natural enough to show what he'll really be like when the eyes are off him in the months after the RfA. Metros (talk) 02:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know one way or the other about things he says on-wiki, but I've talked to him a bunch of times on Gtalk, and I can tell you almost nothing he says on there has to do with any of that. ;) jj137(talk) 02:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, also a great deal of thought because I've seen this coming. First I want to say that he has come a long way -- especially with DYKs, but I still have concerns. Three main reasons for oppose: 1) ties in with the trophy Metros mentions -- over and over RyRy has said he wasn't going to do this for a good amount of time but now because people have asked he's "given in." This speaks to his maturity and ability to know when the time is right. It raises concerns that someone blocked may ask repeatedly and he'll agree to unblock before it's time as well. It also ties into the need for "acceptance" and repeated requests until the person gives in. Being an admin requires a great deal of initiative to take the right action without asking everyone for OK before doing it. Need for validation so frequently is not a sign of someone ready to handle admin duties. The second reason is sadly beyond Ryan's control. During the recent months when he's worked to improve his Wiki skills, and I agree these have improved, he worked with Steve Crossin. Given recent issues, I find the need to question the guidance Steve provided. I think that in his quest to learn more about Wikipedia (a good thing), he may have unwittingly learnt some bad habits. While this is not a huge reason to oppose, it raises a red flag for me right now. That said, I know he has worked with Useight and Baloonman and I believe they have helped him to learn good habits. 3) While Ryan understands that he can't create copyvios and while there are things he did that resulted in the loss of rollback, I'm not sure he understands why they're wrong. I think he's learnt not to do that exact thing again, but I don't think he gets the bigger picture of why not to do something. I suggest more "study" and a decent amont of time between RFAs if this doesn't pass. I thik Ryan will be ready at some point, I don't think now is the time. TravellingCari 02:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Note while I will be checking back in, I do not watchlist RFAs (my own included because they eat watchlists) so if you have a question for me and don't want to wait for me to check back, poke me directly. TravellingCari 03:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Travelling, two things: First, I don't know about Useight, but I haven't been working with RyRy. He's stopped by to ask a few questions, but has not undergone any coaching or anything more than an occasional answer to specific questions. (I know that you are using his work with me as a potential positive, but I do think the record needs to be set straight.) Second, while Steve Crossin definitely messed up, I don't believe that guilt by association should be the basis for an oppose. Up until this past week, Steve was a respected member of the community. It is a shame that he and other respected users blew it like they did, but unless you can point to some specific bad habits that Steve taught him, I think that this rationale in your oppose is overly vague.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon 03:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)2008 (UTC)
By work with, I don't mean the formal sense. I mean any form of teaching. I think your influence (as well as Keeper76, who I know has helped in some form) is a good thing - in whatever form it takes. I apologise if it came across that I meant formal. I think learning from users is a good thing and I don't think any of his work with any other user has been in the form of the 'coaching to appear ready' but rather the "I want to learn more"/"I want to understand how to handle X" form and that's a good thing. You and Useight are both quality users and I know you teach him good things to learn. Re: interaction with Steve, I agree -- Steve was a respected member of the community and would still be if his access to the admin accounts hadn't come to light through the checkuser that was done. However, knowing what has been found out leads me to question anything else he might have done. I think that's human nature. Whether or not it's fair to fault Ryan for that is a valid concern but as I just explained to Unschool, I'd have been neutral/oppose on this anyway. I don't think Ryan is ready yet (something he himself seemed to be admitting recently (that was August 11th, the first one I found in his archives). Administratorship is something I'm not yet going to uphold. ....That time, has not come for me yet. That was August 11th. Two weeks ago. While two weeks is a long time to some, I don't think he's ready. He's shown this impatience before and I don't think impatience/rush is a good quality of an admin candidate. Whether he's an admin in a week (since this may well pass), six months or six years (no, I don't think it will take that long) doesn't make a difference to his ability to contribute. He can continue to write articles and do his other work, not being an admin won't precent that. While you haven't asked but others might, no, I don't think that being an admin on the simple english wikiquote (see here) means he's necessarily ready to be an admin here. More time learning the ropes and different situations will only help him. His association with Steve is not the basis for the oppose but is a factor in the overall. Regardless of whether this had come out with Steve, I would not have supported at this time, I'd have been neutral/oppose, does that make sense? Apologise if it doesn't -- it's late here and I'm probably not writing at my clearest. Am happy to revisit and clarify in the morning and throughout the discussion if needed. TravellingCari 04:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
For full transparency, yes, I have worked with RyRy, providing guidance and assistance. A while back, when RyRy was making his way out of his rocky start, Steve and I kind of tag-teamed in helping him out. Did Steve give him a pletheora of bad advice? I don't believe so. Useight (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, on the concerns raised by Iridescent and Travellingcari; also, this candidate has been editing for about six months, and has 138 edits to the article he has most contributed to (Baseball uniform) compared to 112 edits to his own barnstar page. Considering involvement with Awards-center related activities, this editor hasn't yet shown the time, maturity or content building on Wiki that satisfies my basic threshhold for demonstrating that we know the editor well enough to establish trust. I'm always concerned when someone has taken an admin-coached trajectory, and I'm not convinced yet that enough time has elapsed to absolve concerns about the admin-coached, Award-center based "rocky start". With more content building experience, I would be more likely to support in the future, as this editor seems to be on the right path towards improving relative to these issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty familiar with RyRy. It's true he's improved drastically- a few months back, his edits were harmful about as often as they were constructive. I assume this is no longer the case, but he has a long way to go. What made me notice him a few months ago is the same thing I see now- an editor getting involved in various areas, without really displaying any understanding of what he's getting into. I hope he keeps learning about the project, but giving him access to the block button? No way- he's probably many years away from being ready for that. Friday(talk) 03:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Many years? It's not rocket science buddy. — Realist2 03:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I am sorry, RyRy, from what I have seen you are a civil and dedicated editor. As well, you have demonstrated a sincere committment to learning from your mistakes and improving yourself -- and I commend this. However, the copyright and plagiarism concerns raised above by Metros are too serious and too recent for me. I harbour no prejudice against supporting you in the future, and I hope that you continue your positive trajectory. Kindly, Lazulilasher (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Metros - plagiarism is one of the top things we as an encyclopedia need to guard against. --B (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - (ec x 3) I'm sorry, but I just can't support. The concerns raised in the oppose section are just to much to ignore. While you have improved greatly since you've gotten here, you still need more time. The copyvios brought up by Metros were too recent, in addition to rollback removal. Travellingcari also makes a good point about how he can give in after repeated asking. Being an admin requires you to hold fast to some decisions. I'm a little nervous not as much to someone who would go crazy with the block button, but the unblock button. I hate to oppose someone who is so dedicated to the project, who has lots of potential, but the concerns are just too much to support. I'd just prefer more time here. X!who used to be Soxred93 04:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Iridescent and SandyGeorgia. This editor definitely needs some more experience-while 17,000 edits is quite a lot, much of it seems to be made in vain (an unprecedented 112 edits to his barnstar subpage). Moreover, a mere six months doesn't seem like enough time to provide a user with sufficient experience to become an administrator. NSR77TC 04:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I really don't feel comfortable supporting here. I find myself actually mostly echoing Friday; yes, he's come far since his less-than-stellar beginning, but improvement from the bottom of the barrel doesn't mean he's ready to be an admin yet. The incidents posted by Metros aren't from all that long ago, and really make me doubt this candidate. I'm still also getting a really Myspace-y vibe from this editor, due in part (yes, this will probably get me in trouble) to his age, and the fact that he spends a lot of time designing peoples' userpages. Overall, Sandy puts it fairly well; we just don't know this editor well enough to establish trust in him. GlassCobra 04:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
While he has indeed improved greatly, I don't believe he has the maturity and judgment necessary to be a good administrator. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Metros and Iridescent. They have expressed my concerns with the same links I know about. RyRy has gotten better as an editor, but the concerns expressed are too recent. RyRy could make an admin one day, but there is still a lot of learning to do. Keegantalk 05:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Neutral: I originally voted strong support, but after seeing this and this, I've changed my vote. I can't quite muster an oppose, so I retain my Neutral. Leonard(Bloom) 04:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Abstain - I would have liked to support, but I believe I would have a WP:COI in voting for this user. Best of luck to you though RyRy --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 04:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.