Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Ryan524 3

Closed per user withdrawl

User:Ryan524
Some of you were involved in my last Rfa, well 5 people were. It fialed due to so few votes, so I am back this time I am really working on getting people out to vote. The reason I want to be an administrator is alot of what I do here is basic matnience type stuff. Some of which I don't need to be an admin to do, but something require it. The biggest thing is archiving. There is such a backlog and it seems most the time admins are just archiving the new stuff but not dealing with the backlog so that's one thing I want to fix. I have been a wikinews user for years, was an admin at one time but stepped down before taking an extended wikibreak, now I am back and I see nothing in the forseeable future that would cause another extended wikibreak.-Ryan524 (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

CLAIRIFICATION: YES, a previous Rfa closed about a week ago had failed, but not from opposition but essetially a lack of overall votes anyway to make a consensus. Under normal circumstances I would not be back doing this but concidering the situation in which my previous one was closed I see no issue. I'm glad to see a turnout for voting here, and I will be letting the Rfa go. That said reguardless of its outcome, this Rfa is it, what the final outcome is, is it. So I ask that you set aside your feelings about another Rfa so soon and vote how you think I would do as an admin again. I ask that you take a honest evaluation. If you really feel you are in a sistuation where you do not "know me well enough" well than I extend an invitation o you to come on IRC, I am on there at least once a day (on weekdays) and we can chat.

The other thing that was brought up by Cirt was some actions after my last Rfa, honestly it seems some might take these actions the wrong way. I am also more than happy to discuss it in IRC. The consensus discussion IMO is an important discussion to get everybody on the same page, while it was the previous Rfa that got me thinking about it, I get the sense some of you came to the conclusion that I was trying to change my Rfa or something, but that is not what it was about. Also Cirt mentioned the AAA entries. IMHO its obvious, I found articles needing archiving and they wern't currently listed in the DL at the bottom of WN:ARCHIVE so I added them there so an admin knew. It was not intended to be any form of "Revenge" I could come up with a better revenge if I wanted to get revenge, come on.

Any other questions, comments, or concerns, feel free to ask here, or find me in IRC.--Ryan524 (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * -- After his last RfA closed unsuccessfully, performed several actions which were not admirable, at least to me.  He started a back and forth discussion about "consensus", which seemed to directly stem from his unsuccessful RfA.  In addition, he flooded the Administrators' Alerts page with Archive requests, seemingly as a form of retaliation to create more work for Admins after his RfA was not successful.  These are not traits we should have in our Admins.  However, even given all this, if his behavior improves and he contributes positively for a couple months, I would most likely support an RfA in the future.  I also think this one comes way too soon on the heels of the last one.  I will provide Diffs, but have to run out at the moment, will be back later.  Cirt (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how discussing something is "not admirable" I think it was a useful discussion. And listing archiove requests is harldy a form of retaliation but simply noting some articles I found that needed archiving.  Though I can see how you would think these things I just want to clairify.-Ryan524 (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you would like further clairification i'd be happy tochat about it with you on irc.--Ryan524 (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This comment was also troubling to me. Cirt (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to Neutral, Ryan524 has also been making some good contributions lately, but I am still a bit ambivalent, per above. Cirt (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry Ryan, the issues Cirt mentions as well as your incredible desire to become an admin (wait a bit between RFAs :) ) leave me some what concerned and I can not support adminship at this time. --Cspurrier (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would not say I have an incredible desire to become an admin. If I did I would have just asked a b'crat for my adminship back per the now removed reinstatement ability.  Normally I would wait but seeing how it was not failed because of opposition but because of lack of consensus IMO there is nothing wrong with re-rfaing now, it would have been diffrent it the majority of my votes were oppose.--Ryan524 (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * NOw don't get me wrong, I do want to help out archiving is a big need right now and I would be glad to server in that capacity but only if the community chooses to let me. Also what I siad to Cirt about the "issues" that goes for anyone because while I can see how you could come to that conclusion that would be a misinterpretation and I would be more than happy to help expalin that better so everyone is on the same page.--Ryan524 (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * despite the issues raised as Ryan seems to know what he's doing and I don't believe he would abuse the tools. I he does receive adminship I do hope he doesn't prove me wrong, but I still trust him. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 06:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue has now become one where people appear to be opposing because they feel they are being badgered into granting the sysop bit. I know, meant to be "no big deal", but that's not the issue here. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support Blood Red Sandman. I'm glad to have someone standing with me here, but don't worry I would bet money you won't be the only support.--Ryan524 (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the urgent rush to be an admin again? Bombarding the community with RfA's isn't going to do you any favours. There was an opportunity when the previous request was closed effectively due to no consensus to reflect on what was said and build up a better working relationship with the community for a few weeks but this seems to have been missed. I don't that think you shouldn't be an administrator again, just not yet. Adambro (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * time between requests is unseemly. I suspect the best course of action would be to withdraw the request and forget about this for a time (longer than between this and the previous) then quietly find someone to nominate instead of a self-nom. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * as i said on your previous request, wait a couple of month or so and you'll get my vote, 2 weeks is too short. Best wait that someone else propose you as admin; i like this way Jacques Divol (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears I didn't realize Rfaing so soon would be such an issue, IMO it shouldn't be because its not Ilike most people opposed me, it was just not enough either way. But even with this I'm going to let this one run it's course and howeer it ends...well lit ends.--Ryan524 (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * . This is too soon after the last rfa.Anonymous101  16:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * per all above comments. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 17:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally think he'd be a good admin. However I also feel one of the most important qualities of an admin is that he is trusted by the community at large, which does not appear to be the case at this point in time. Sorry, better luck next time. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)