Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryanpostlethwaite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Ryanpostlethwaite

Final: (80/8/3); ended 19:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ryanpostlethwaite (talk · contribs) - I think Ryan's ready for the mop. In his time here I believe he's proven himself trustworthy to serve the community. He's regularly commenting in admin areas, and he's clearly shown he knows what he's doing. He's a vandalfighter as well, something we can't have enough off, and from his comments on WP:RFCN I can see he understands the blocking policy properly. In addition, he's always civil and polite, and as admins are often thought of as setting an example, I think he'll do well with the extra tools. Majorly (o rly?) 09:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination - It is my pleasure to co-nominate Ryan for adminship though it is a bit late. I've been interacting w/ Ryan since weeks now as he's been very active at the ANI and RfC. His fairness and balanced views lead me to put my trust on him and i am sure he will be a big asset to wikipedia as an admin. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 17:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: As a sysop, I would have 2 main ports of call, firstly AIV, part of my work on wikipedia involves vandal fighting and I see all to often vandals going on spree's in an attempt to discredit the encyclopedia, it is often very important that blocks are issued quickly as a protective measure for the encyclopedia to stop this - hence thats why I view working on AIV as very important. Having said all that, I also feel it is very important for all users to receive the full scope of warnings before recieving a block (unless the vandalism is of very serious magnitude), if blocks are handed out too easily, it can discourage possibly good editors in the future from editing. My second port of call would be CAT:CSD, I have tagged numerous pages for speedy deletion in the past (and just about all have been deleted!), there are often large backlogs here and it is very important that clear nonsense pages or attack pages are deleted from the encyclopedia as fast as possible for the encyclopedia to maintain its credability. Many of the pages that I tag for speedy deletion, I would still tag for speedy deletion rather than deleting outright, it is often better to get a second opinion as to whther an article should be deleted rather than jumping straight in and deleting it. To a lesser extent I would also like to help out in closing AfD's, consensus is key to wikipedia and certainly shouldn't be classed as vote counting, it should be based on the strength of the arguments which I feel I have a good eye for spotting. All in all, adminship is nothing big, it would simply give me the tools to add to the work that I currently do and hopefully allow me to further help the encyclopedia.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: The thing I'm most proud of on wikipedia would have no benefit from admin tools, it is my adoption of User:Boswell, I actually feel I have been a really big help to him, I'm simply a friendly face there to oversee his contributions and generally keep a check on how he's doing, if you look on his talk page you will see the dialogue that we've had. I'm there for him to come to whenever he wants my help. Its very important that new users don't feel alone when they join wikipedia as this can often mean that they leave the project - often we lose good editors because of this, welcoming new users is something else I'm proud of. For the future, hopefully on April 1 (April fools day) I will be fortunate enough to see Red rain in Kerala on the main page which me and a few other users are currently planning on bringing up to FA standard in time for the date - a tough task but hopefully with hard work it can be achieved.
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: Almost every editors been in a conflict at one time or another, and more than anything the key thing is to remain civil and assume good faith that all editors are here to improve the encyclopedia. I am a firm believer that differences should be discussed and worked through, rather than getting into an edit war. If needs be, it can be best to take yourself away from wikipedia for a period of time allowing you to reflect upon things, and hopefully come back with a clearer mind. Tomorrow is new day, and we all have to work with each other on a daily basis, so whatever conflicts have occured, we must try hard to forget them in order to move on and further the encyclopedia. Getting a neutral view on conflicts can help a lot, and it can allow you to see things better from the other side. With my work on WP:RFCN, there are often very conflicting views on whether or not a username is acceptable, the key is to stick to policy at all times and this often helps to resolve the issue - quoting policy mostly makes users that were previously unaware of the particular part of policy aware of it and it can calm things down.
4. If your contributions to Wikipedia talk are any guide, then username policy is your primary policy interest. Could you expand on your interests in username issues? Also, as an admin please describe how you would be likely to deal with cases of bad and/or questionable usernames. Dragons flight 20:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
A: My interest in Wikipedia:Username policy comes from my work on WP:RFCN, here we get many usernames that are questionable and often concerns are raised which are not set in the policy, if this is the case, I often take it to Wikipedia talk:Username policy to try and gain a consensus as to what additions if any are to be made. The policy at present is very much open to interpretation, with many admins and users seeing it in different lights, a clearer policy would stop many cases of newbie biting (as usernames that did not infringe the policy would not be blcoked on sight or discussed at WP:RFCN - a very off putting start to any new editors wikipedian life) but it would also make it clearer as to what is acceptable for a block on sight, or which cases should be dicussed first. I have an interest in usernames for a number of reasons; Blatantly offensive usernames can distract people from the encyclopedia, which can only be a bad thing for the project, secondally, I truly hate newbie biting and although very serious infringement of the policy should be blocked on sight, non clear ones should be discussed first, giving chance for the user in question to explain their name and ultimately come to a consensus with the community as to how to move forward. As to how I would deal with username violations as an admin, clear cut infringements would be blocked on sight as WP:U states is the correctthing to do, if I felt for any reason whatsoever that my personal judgement of the username may difer from the community, I would refer the username to WP:RFCN. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Other than username policy, are there any other areas of Wikipedia policy that you have contributed to, or have thought about working on in the future? Dragons flight 20:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
A: At present, I have not been in any other policy related matters, I have however had some input into WP:MUSIC (the notability guidline for music inclusion in wikipedia) and particularly the section on album notability which currently reads; Though this guideline is somewhat controversial, the general consensus on notability of albums is that if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. I personally feel that this isn't really acceptable as an official guidline for wikipedia as it should have much clearer points that the album must meet in order to be included. I have created a proposed addition to this guidline in my userspace (User:Ryanpostlethwaite/WP:MUSIC (album)) to try and make it more like the other notability guidline, we are currently discussing this to gain a consensus on the proposed addition before we make any changes. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
6 Since you're mainly focussing on editing, are you aware of image licencing policies? Differences between the creative commons licences, public domain, and GFDL? Could you comment on the status of this image: Image:Flag of FOTW.svg =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
A I have to say that editing articles is not my major action on wikipedia and it certainly won't be after concerns highlighted in this Rfa, and image licensing policy is not something I actively engage in on wikipedia. I concentate mainly on vandalism reversion, speedy deletion tagging on articles and similar policy matters. I am however aware of the GFDL lisense, which means that images are released allowing anyone the ability to use it or modify it as long as whatever document it is in is under the same license. Public domain images are free of ownership and anyone may use them as they wish. The creative commons license is a way in which the ceators of images may release them into the public domain, whilst still reserving some of the rights, the particular creative commons license it uses, gives the particular rights that are still reserved by the creator, I do not know each of the particular creative commons licenses, so this is something which I have to look up if ever needed, this brings me to Image:Flag of FOTW.svg, this image is released under the creative commons license, specifically attribution 2.5, this means that anyone may share or modify the image, but it must be made clear who the author is (and this must be done in the way the author wishes), it must also be made clear upon reuse, the particular license which the image is using. As an admin I would not get involved in image related matters such as IfD or speedy deletion of images. Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually that image is copyrighted. It was incorrectly marked as cc-by-sa. As an admin, you would need to clear these basics. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. First support comes free with the nomination! Good luck mate. Majorly (o rly?) 20:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strong Support. I actually thought you were an admin. Seems like I confused you with Ryangerbil10 hehe. Anyway, I've seen great work from this user, and I was actually considering nominating this user once Majorly told me about Ryan. Great work at WP:AIV, WP:U, WP:RFC/NAME and article editing. Nishkid64 20:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support I have had good interactions with Ryan and I trust his judgement as an editor. He will make a fine admin. IrishGuy talk 20:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support - excellent! Somebody who contributes, vandalfights *and* is even British (we need more UK based sysops). Matthew 20:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    You're joking about that last bit, right? The UK isn't exactly underrepresented here on Wikipedia. Picaroon 21:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    Possibly, the comment refers to having enough admins in different time zones to combat vandalism on a 24 hour basis, as opposed to, just for example, suggesting that more pro-British POV pushers are required. Addhoc 00:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support I've had a lot of interaction with Ryan on WP and he has been an excellent and fair editor. Can't fault the guy! - Alison☺ 20:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support: Certainly. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support. Rettetast 20:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Strong Support-Great user. See him around RFCN all the time. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 20:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Excellent work all round (which is where I see him most!) Bubba hotep 20:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Strong support Looks like I finally get to use the "I thought he already was" cliché. Per Bubba hotep, I've seen him all around and he'd make an excellent admin. John Reaves (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Looks great to my eyes. Captain panda In vino veritas 21:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support. An excellent user whom I continuously encounter with through recent changes patrol. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support. Khoikhoi 21:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support! Great! –Llama mantalkcontribs 21:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support A good user overall. [1], and [2] show that this user won't abuse the blocking privilege.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support - agree with nom - he's ready. Addhoc 00:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support — Meteoroid »  01:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support looks like a good user.-- danntm T C 01:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support A good contributor who is actively engaged in policy. --Kukini hablame aqui 02:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support A very dedicated editor and an asset to the Administration..--Cometstyles 02:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support I think he will be a fine admin. James086Talk 03:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support I trust Majorly's judgement. Just Heditor review 04:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  23. My interactions with Ryan convince me he's ready. – Chacor 04:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support. Michael 05:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support ... but I thought you already were? Yuser31415 06:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support must turn thought into reality. Agathoclea 08:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support. PeaceNT 11:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support great and experienced candidate. - Anas Talk? 11:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support per amusing photo and general common sense. Neil (not Proto ►) 12:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  30. Pure cliché support good luck! The Rambling Man 16:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  31. Strong support as co-nom. Good luck. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 17:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support - another one for the Brit Cabal. Moreschi Request a recording? 18:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  33. Seen him around; generally impressed. Keep up the good work. — Dan | talk 20:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  34. I find him to be well-reasoned, even where I disagree with him. Excellent, trustworthy candidate. --Dweller 20:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  35. Strong Support - I have worked with this editor on several occasions. This editor works well in difficult sitautions, such as working at WP:RFCN. I think this editor would make excellent use of the tools. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support Seen him around, seems to be one of the good guys. – riana_dzasta 21:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  37. Definitely. – Steel 23:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support - a gentleman, and a scholar! -Manopingo 00:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support Not a slack fellow. Busy, trusted by many, helps new editors. I just hope he won't question the appropriateness of my name on WP:RFCN. Pigmandialogue 00:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  40. Go for it. You look like you'll be successful with adminship. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 00:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support I've come across his good work a number of times; I trust him with the mop. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support big time. One of the nicest users I've come across here. delldot talk 02:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  43. Moppable - Georgewilliamherbert 04:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support. Causesobad → (Talk) 09:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  45. Terence Ong 09:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  46. Yup. Seen him around, seems like a sound chap, no big deal. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support, obviously. If this hadn't happened I would have nominated him myself. Walton Vivat Regina! 11:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support Good job.--Húsönd 14:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support, Appleworm 15:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support excellent wikipedian. Keep going this way. Happy editing Snowolf(talk)CONCOI - 17:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support Deb 17:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support. -- RHaworth 18:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support This user is a friendly user. He is a decent editor who I think would make a good administrator; and when other users have been upset or troubled for whatever reason, he has helped them. Acalamari 20:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support -- He seems like an active editor who has been around and is familiar with what it's like to be a sysop. The copyright issue is a problem, but his explanation seems adequate. Luis1972 (Talk • My Contribs) 06:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support. I have found him to be a thoughtful and considerate contributor when I have seen him at WP:RFCN. Sam Blacketer 10:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support He will make a good admin, enough said. --sunstar nettalk 11:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support. I'm willing to overlook the citation thing, since he's owned up to his mistake and is working to fix it, and in any event it seems relatively tangential to the sort of things he'd actually be doing as an administrator. His actual policy- and process-related edits seem pretty good. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support. I've seen Ryan a great deal at WP:RFCN. He always keeps cool and considers different points of view. He would make good use of the tools. Coemgenus 15:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support Incredible editor, I have seen an amazing amount of excellent contributions from him in such little time on the project. With the tools he could be even better. Philip Gronowski Contribs 20:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support I never interacted directly with the user, but I had a chance to bump into some of his contributions and was always pleasantly surprised to see a vandal fighter being able to contribute so efficently to the project, I couldn't support more - Myanw 23:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  62. Weak Support Based on your administrator-related work, I would have given you a strong support, but these allegations of plagarism upset me, you need to work on that (which I am sure you will after the response to it in this RfA). Otherwise, you are a prime candidate (hence my support). Cbrown1023 talk 23:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support--Heywool 00:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support I've been very happy seeing Ryan's civility and constructiveness in many Wikipedia discussions. I'm fine with him as an administrator.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support per above. --Meno25 05:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  66. Support. This editor seems like an excellent candidate, has good experience, and I believe he can be trusted with the tools. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  67. I support this nomination for Ryan's wonderful vandal fighting and his ability to keep it cool. Also I can't wait to get those album notability guidelines updated. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  68. Support. I believe Ryan will make a good admin. I have on occasion interacted him at WP:RFCN when I have visited this page. We rarely agree, but if there was always concensus as to how to resolve username probs the page would not be needed. I think his opinions there reflect a wider tendency to generally AGF when others would not but I'm not convinced by those opposing that this is necessarily a bad thing. As to the copyright issues, I take Ryan at his word that it will not reoccur. WjBscribe 13:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  69. Support per nom. Good-faithed user, will make a fair admin. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  70. Support. Sure, he spends a lot of his time at RFCN, but still a great user.--Wizardman 03:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  71. Support. Strong endorsement given his constructive attitude, devotion to administrative tasks, and the professional manner in which he acknowledged and corrected past mistakes. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  72. Support. Though with all the other votes, it looks like he doesn't need mine. Ryan is an excellent editor who makes Wikipedia a much better place through his tireless efforts to combat vandalism. he would make a great admin. Jeffpw 12:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  73. Support. Enough said above. -- Nick t 21:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  74. Support Phew! Almost too late! I wouldn't want to miss out on supporting you! · AO Talk 01:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  75. Support Clear aim. Dedicated vandal fighter. - Microtony 12:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  76. support --dario vet (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  77. Support Well, it's not critical at this point, but that doesn't reduce my support :) Leebo T/C 07:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  78. Support I've seen this user around and I just cant remember! Good edit count and valuable contributions, could use the extra tools greatly! Aquasplash 12:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  79. Support If Ryan's understood the plagarism rules and resolved not to repeat his error, I'm happy to support his bid for admin. Coricus 16:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  80. Support (Changed from oppose). I've just been considering the statement Ryan recently put on his userpage and I believe he is most sincere in his comments. I believe he now understands that taking a piece of text and only changing a few words around is plagiarism and I think he understands that it unacceptable both on Wikipedia and academically. I think overall Ryan has been a very good editor and that he will make an excellent administrator. I just hope that if Ryan remembers other articles where he has done similar things with the source material, that he will immediately rewrite or delete as appropriate. More than what Ryan did, I'm disappointed by the blasé attitude some have shown towards plagiarism and copyright because this is a serious issue. But I don't hold it against Ryan and I feel comfortable in supporting his RfA. Sarah 19:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Unfortunately, I feel this candidate needs more time and experience. As shown by the evidence presented on the talk page, many of Ryan's mainspace contributions are essentially plagarism. I am going to assume that this is unintentional due to lack of understanding of our content policies, but it is more than enough reason for me to oppose. While it is okay for admins to focus their time in specific areas of interest, I do expect them to have at least a modest understanding of all the primary areas of wiki activity. Ryan has focused on username issues, welcoming new users, reverting vandalism, and various minor formatting issues to the near total exclusion of everything else. In particular, I can find only a very tiny number of articles where he has made substantive contributions, and most of those appear to lift substantially from outside sources without identifying direct quotes.

    To his credit, Ryan is identifying the sources he copies as references/external links, but he fails to make clear that much of his content is verbatim quoting. In my opinion, Ryan does not yet have a sufficient grasp of the requirements of article writing or of our content policies in order to be ready for adminship. Dragons flight 06:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

    Oppose. When I noticed Ryan's name on the RfA list, I came straight here all set to give my support, however, I'm very concerned by the evidence of plagiarism which DF has presented. I just can't support a candidate who has plagiarised as recently as last month. Some of the bios like Harold Gaba should be rewritten asap or deleted as copyvios because all but a few words has been copied from the source. Ryan, if there is an explanation for this, please tell us. Sarah 19:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Changing to support. Sarah 19:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    I did not feel it appropriate to comment on my own Rfa, but I do feel for this particular matter, I owe an explanation. I have myself tagged numerous pages for speedy deletion due to copyright problems, and totally agree that copyright infringements are a very serious issue for wikipedia, opening it up to libelous action. The major problem with the articles in question, is that I have failed to reference them correctly, prior to British Pharmacological Society, these articles were written when I first came to wikipedia, and the only honest explanation I can give is that I have forgottern about them. With regards to British Pharmacological Society (which I wrote last month), I aimed to use the full extent of the reference facility, to curbe any copyright issues. Although I was planning to do this at the end of my Rfa so people would still see the issue, I am now going to fully rewrite, or tag for deletion, all the articles in question, due to the concerns raised. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    Moral Oppose per WP:SIG. - NYC JD (make a motion) 02:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    Withdraw the moral oppose, nominee changed his sig - NYC JD (make a motion) 02:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Ryan is fascinated with WP:RFCN, however, it is a process time-sink which should be merged to WP:AIV and WP:RENAME. Ryan worries on behalf of blatant vandals when they not been read their Miranda rights. The amount of attention he has given to throw-away accounts suggests that he would, despite numerical appearances, be unproductive or even counterproductive as an administrator. That wouldn't be a big deal in itself, with so many other administrators who can actually get things done in the meantime, as long as you are not causing deliberate harm to the project, which brings me to the most important issue being discussed: COPYRIGHT. It would be better for you to edit/create no articles at all than to plagiarize. I really don't care whether it's malice, apathy, or ignorance — any of these traits should disqualify an aspiring admin. Strongly oppose. — CharlotteWebb 05:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose a difficult decision in someways, individual issue on their own I would quite possibly have just remained overall netural on, combined tips the balance to an oppose. I'm concerned with the WP:RFCN issue, maybe not quite as strongly as CharlotteWebb, but the last few ocassions I have visited it seems to be becoming a bureaucractic process, apparently more interested in rules for the sake of rules than actually the bigger picture of the encyclopedia. This of course isn't directly down to any single editor, but the involvment there seems to be directly a part of that and I'm not sure it's a shining example of the way things should work on wikipedia (i.e. it maybe poor experience rather than valuable experience). The copyright issue is a big one, saying I'd leave an outstanding copyright issue until after RFA so people could see it, seems to be a million miles away from the behaviour I'd expect of a potential admin, if you know it's a copyvio deal with it as soon as practical. Similarly the other statements made above regarding this, such as copyright infringement "opening it up to libelous action.", certainly don't give me any better impression that there is sufficient knowledge in such areas. (What has Libel generally got to do with Copyright ?) As I've said on other RFAs I'm not necessarily concerned about things people don't know (since they'll tend to avoid or ask when faced with it), I am concerned when they claim to know (an be acting on that knowledge) but that knowledge seems quite lacking. --pgk 12:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per above. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - I realise that this will make no difference to the outcome, and I congratulate Ryan on his elevation to administratorship, but I have to say that the evidence of plagiarism and copyright violation identified by Dragons flight means that I must vote 'oppose'. I do not support the reasoning given by Charlotte. - Richardcavell 03:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    If you read my comment from beginning to end you will see that copyright violations are also my strongest concern regarding this user, so I believe we are more in agreement than your comment suggests. — CharlotteWebb 06:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per copyright concerns raised by Dragons flight. The activity would have been enough to get him blocked if had been caught in the act. I can't support Ryan at this time and I encourage him, despite the majority support to withdraw the nomination until the literally illegal activity has been resolved. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    In fairness, any issues over the articles mentioned have been resolved. A list of the five articles and their current status is at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ryanpostlethwaite - Alison☺ 18:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, but how certain are you that there are not more? — CharlotteWebb 02:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    How can anyone be sure you haven't any, or me? Well, WP:AGF and presumption of innocence has to come into it, no? - Alison☺ 02:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    How do I presume innocense when he has admited guilt? How do I assume good faith when bad faith has been proven? If this was a school he would have been tossed out on his ear. Pladgerism is one of the few things that damage the entire project. I'm amazed that so few are taking this seriously.
    This isn't a death sentence and it shouldn't be a scarlet letter... but this hasn't been resolved untill there is a full investigation into his contributions. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose This is obviously going to pass, but the plagiarism is very troubling. Too troubling for me to want this to pass. We're all part of a massive project here, but Copyright issues can do so much damage. It's hard to hold Wikipedia liable for any infringements we make. Therefore, we have to do extra to check ourselves. Anyways, congratulations on the adminship and please do not abuse this position. StayinAnon 11:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. See my original comments in the neutral section. Dekimasuよ! 16:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. His actions are in good faith, but I've seen comments of his which lead me to question his judgement on multiple occasions. [3], [4], and [5] are by no means all of them. Picaroon 21:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. I feel that Ryanpostlethwaite was much too quick to open this RfC, given that the issue seemed clearly to me to be vagueness in the username policy rather than the actions of any given admin. If he becomes an admin, I would urge Ryan, in future, to recognize the difficulties of making admin decisions and the likelihood of any RfC on an admin attracting a fair amount of trolling, and consider it to be a last resort. I've sorted through his recent contributions, however, and in general Ryan is clearly an excellent editor. Chick Bowen 04:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    I did not feel it appropriate to comment on my own Rfa, but I do feel for this particular matter, I owe an explanation. I have myself tagged numerous pages for speedy deletion due to copyright problems, and totally agree that copyright infringements are a very serious issue for wikipedia, opening it up to libelous action. The major problem with the articles in question, is that I have failed to reference them correctly, prior to British Pharmacological Society, these articles were written when I first came to wikipedia, and the only honest explanation I can give is that I have forgottern about them. With regards to British Pharmacological Society (which I wrote last month), I aimed to use the full extent of the reference facility, to curbe any copyright issues. Although I was planning to do this at the end of my Rfa so people would still see the issue, I am now going to fully rewrite, or tag for deletion, all the articles in question, due to the concerns raised. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    Huh? My comment was on the RfC you started, not on the copyvio issue. Chick Bowen 21:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, that was a duplicated comment from the above section, it was meant as no way reference to your comments RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    I came here with the intent to support, but I was swayed by the evidence of improper paraphrasing. I do not agree that the problem was simply a failure to source, because even if RyanPostlethwaite had referenced his sources, it would still have been a nearly word-for-word restatement of the source, which would still be improper paraphrasing. This leads me to question his judgment, which is why I'm reluctantly in the neutral section. I hope he will give some indication that he understands why it would still be a problem. Dekimasuよ! 09:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Changing to oppose, as my concerns have not been addressed. Dekimasuよ! 16:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. A fine user, but I feel this editor needs a month or two longer to absorb all that is Wikipedia. -- Longhair\talk 08:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.