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

Ryulong[edit]

Final (54/35/12) Ended 20:20, 2006-08-10 (UTC)

Ryulong (talk · contribs) – Ryulong is a very experienced contributor who has been editing since February of 2006, and has made more than 11,000 edits in his 6 months here. Recently, Ryulong has contributed heavily to the counter vandalism effort, and this is where he has consistently displayed a need for the tools. I have never seen a user that he has reported on IRC go unblocked, and he reports quite a fair number every day. Giving him the power to block these users would help to decrease the amount of vandalism to Wikipedia. Ryulong has also made many valuable contributions to pages in: Category:City of Heroes, Category:Xiaolin Showdown, Category:Power Rangers, and Wikipedia:Pokémon Collaborative Project. Ryulong has demonstrated a clear need for the mop, and has given no reason to suggest that he would misuse it in any way. digital_me(Talk•Contribs) 19:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. Ryūlóng 20:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I would assist in the reports at WP:AIV, WP:ANI, and WP:AN, which I already browse every so often as part of counter-vandalism measures, as well as continue my work in the CVU IRC channel by dealing with unrepetant vandals that are alerted to users through the channel. I will also work in the various deletion discussions, particularly for pages on WP:AFD that have been nominated for deletion, and may have been recreated by the original author (I have occasionally browsed through the AFD logs and searched for such links, and either contacted an administrator or listed the pages for speedy deletion under CSD G4).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am particularly pleased with my contributions to the various articles about Power Rangers to keep the pages in as good a condition so that one day they can be perhaps Good Articles, instead of fan forums or fan pages. I am also proud of my contribution to WikiProject Hawaiʻi so that finally their ʻokina can be viewed by all users, Internet Explorer editors, FireFox editors, and Mac editors.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Of the few editting conflicts I have been involved in, most of them have been due to my status as an RC Patroller, as well as some truthful vandal reverts that I had been temporarily blocked for due to 3RR. I have, and will continue to try and defer to others if necessary to prevent my breaking of any rules. There have been some users that have caused me a bit of stress, but to relieve my stress, I have used methods of calming myself, such as taking short wikibreaks to calm myself with music and other stress relievers.
Question 4. by FloNight
Your Wikipedia email account is not activated. Why? Will you activate so that users can contact you regarding admins issues? FloNight talk 13:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answer It was only recently (within the past week) that I had even put in anything related to an e-mail address into my preferences. I have not activated this, yet, because I am currently using my personal e-mail address (not a hotmail, gmail, yahoo, etc. account). If I can, I will change the e-mail address associated with it to the one I have through school (which instead will redirect to my personal mailbox so I will be able to reply easily). Ryūlóng 20:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have now enabled e-mail from other users. 20:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Optional question from Lar:
5. (one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 18:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware about voluntary recall/review, but if such a situation were to occur if I were to become an admin, I would not object to such a review. It would give me constructive criticism as to my (currently hypothetical) status as an admin and my faults as an editor, just as the various opposition votes below are calling into question now. I have heard about Rouge admins to an extent, but I have not really looked into the situation (the most I know is that "Rouge" is purposefully used instead of "Rogue", and I can discern that it must mean that the admins have gone rogue/AWOL/amok in some form). I do see that the process of Rouge admins is calling into question the faults of the user, albeit in a humorous fashion. If another admin felt I was going "Rouge", then I would take it as it was intended, constructive (yet funny) criticism. Now, I have to see what "WP:WONK" is. Ryūlóng 23:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 07:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Viewing contribution data for user Ryulong (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 17 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 7hr (UTC) -- 04, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 0hr (UTC) -- 18, July, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 56.8% Minor edits: 21.62%
Average edits per day: 481.93 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 446 edits): Major article edits: 93.4% Minor article edits: 24.32%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 39 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.02% (1)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.42% (21)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 14.92% (746)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 11.71%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 36 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 2291 | Average edits per page: 2.18 | Edits on top: 21.9%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 9.76% (488 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 0.86% (43 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 41.06% (2053 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 33.92% (1696 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 51.7% (2585) | Article talk: 8.4% (420)
User: 3.82% (191) | User talk: 24.8% (1240)
Wikipedia: 7.04% (352) | Wikipedia talk: 0.92% (46)
Image: 1.08% (54)
Template: 1.86% (93)
Category: 0.18% (9)
Portal: 0.04% (2)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.16% (8)
Edit count from Tool2 at 19:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Total edits 11456
Distinct pages edited 3853
Average edits/page 2.973
First edit 20:12, 6 February 2006
Main 7202
Talk 711
User 228
User talk 1857
Image 345
MediaWiki talk 2
Template 260
Template talk 35
Category 31
Category talk 2
Wikipedia 711
Wikipedia talk 70
Portal 2
Support
  1. digital_me(Talk•Contribs) 20:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC) — as nominator.[reply]
  2. Support - Recent good experience with this user, his/her thoughtful consideration of an issue changed my opinion. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Looks great to me. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 20:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Impressive numbers! Gladly support. --Tuspm (C | @) 20:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support (2x edit conflict) – will not abuse the tools. See my standards. — FireFox (talk) 20:47, 03 August '06
  6. Strong support The user seems very competent, has a strong presence on both article and user talk pages (and I'm a big fan of admins who freely use talk pages), has been pegged as an excellent editor by many other editors (as judging from his user and talk pages), and has tons upon tons of edits. I see absolutely no reason Ryulong could not and should not be an admin. -- Kicking222 20:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Seems to be a well rounded editor with clear uses for the mop. Themindset 20:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing my vote based on this diff [1]. I will wait to see how this RFA plays out. Themindset 22:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Reaffirmed support. I find the nominee's explanation of the Emory diff satisfactory, I don't see him abusing the tools. Themindset 20:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support per my experiences with the user. G.He 20:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Rama's arrow 21:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support I've seen this user often on RC patrol and I believe the extra buttons will allow him to become much more productive hoopydinkConas tá tú? 21:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per nom. Couldnt find anything I'd disagree with. Contributes pretty much everywhere. SynergeticMaggot 21:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I've seen you around and you're a great editor. You'd be even better as an admin. Roy A.A. 21:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per nom. --Shane (talk/contrib) 21:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support for reasons of my own, though I'd like to suggest being careful with that block button. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 21:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per nom and consistent with my standards. Joe 22:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support Requests for adminship/Ryulong is a dedicated, hard working wikipedian that has shown me sound judgement, I have no problems in supporting him, the diff's in oppose fail to sway me Benon 23:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak support Switch to oppose. I find it irksome when a candidate's apologists "debate" oppose voters. based on edit count and time meet User:Dlohcierekim#Standards. However, I agree with User:Jaranda that the User:68.221.59.61 - Emory University affair could have been handled better. Comment- After reviewing 68.221.59.61 Contribs and User_talk:68.221.59.61, I believe the edits were questionable but not quite vandalism, and that the situation escalated beyond reason. I would suggest that User:Ryulong step back from confrontation and be a little less quick on the draw-- or to condemn. I was RCPatrolling at the time and almost tagged User:68.221.59.61 myself. Either User:Ryulong beat me to it or I had a doubt and stopped. The other item marked by Jaranda also concerns me. We are less WP Police than coaches. Wikipedia is not a paper (or granite) encyclopedia. We can always change edits we don't like. We cannot bring back editors driven off by overly zealous RCPatrolling. :) Dlohcierekim 00:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong support - great vandal fighter and a dedicated editor abakharev 00:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Does this user ever sleep???? Crazynas t 01:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    True Wikiholics don't sleep. ;) --Andeh 12:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sleep is for weak people. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Maybe he can sleep when he becomes an admin...I hope. Excellent user. alphaChimp laudare 01:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, good vandal fighter, editor, will make a good admin. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 02:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Support His dedication to this project speaks for itself. Although, he had made a few mistakes along the way (see the oppose comments), it is not right to view them in an exclusive manner. His positive contributions outweighs the negative edits considerably. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Only positive interactions with this user, plus he has four time my edit count! RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support I have seen this user's diligence and hard work and support this nomination. Michael 04:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Good user; admin powers will be in good hands Brian | (Talk) 05:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support He deserves to be an admin. dedicates himself to hard work on Wikipedia for becoming admin. *~Daniel~* ☎ 06:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, reasons under oppose don't make me think the user will be a bad admin.--Andeh 09:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. I doubt he'd abuse the tools, Highway Return to Oz... 09:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, meets my requirements, and everyone makes mistakes. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support take the mop :P —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 11:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Deb 11:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support ticks all my boxes! A solid user. Thε Halo Θ 15:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per nom! —Khoikhoi 20:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. - Mailer Diablo 23:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Supprt'. As per nom. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong Support. I've worked with him in the past and found him to be a good, responsible editor, and a hard-working vandal-fighter (which is why I'm temporarily coming out of Wikibreak to support him). Also, I commend him for not mollycoddling those who come to Wikipedia to destroy its integrity. jgp (T|C) 01:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Ho-hum. I had been mentally mulling over (granted, I have a tendency to mentally mull things over without actually doing them...) a longish nomination for this user when I see I've been beaten to it. On the "rvv" thing: There are much worse crimes. I've seen it a few times, and it has sometimes bothered me (only sometimes; most of the time they are without a doubt bad edits that should be reverted anyway) and I had been meaning him to needle him about it. So, yes, he's made mistakes in the past, and I'm glad that this RFA has highlighted them; there is no doubt in my mind that he will learn from them. The long and short of it is, however, that he's a good editor who knows what he's doing. As such, he should not be denied use of administrative tools, as far as I am concerned.--SB | T 03:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support -- Tawker 06:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Adult Fan of Lego Support - Friendly editor, experienced. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 07:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strong support Strong RC patrolling record; appears able to handle things in a calm manner. Seems to be handling the User:YourCousin issue well. A few mistakes are inevitable for a dedicated RC patroller, given the blur that RC edits can become. --Emufarmers(T/C) 10:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support MER-C 10:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong support Already a valuable contributor, Ryulong's potential as an admin is extensive. --Gray Porpoise 18:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong support I have seen him at work shows he is a valuable user Betacommand 01:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Most of Ryulong's edits that I've personally witnessed have been AFD contributions and RC patrolling, and have mostly indicated to me that the contributor will be a responsible admin. — NMChico24 02:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Full support. This editor is a valuable part of the project; I'm confident that now or later, whenever this editor is given the mop and bucket, it'll be a net gain for Wikipedia. The opposition votes seem overly picky. Give this editor a mop! JDoorjam Talk 06:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong Support. Active vandal-fighter and helpful in patrolling edits on a wide variety of articles. Often I'll go away from a page briefly intending to come back and fix it after a short break, only to find he's already done what I'd intended.--Rosicrucian 14:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support --CFIF (talk to me) 17:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Keep up the good work against vandals! With the right tools, they won't know what's hit them! Wikiwoohoo 21:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Duplicate[reply]
    Support - a very friendly, reliable and consistant editor. Wiki would benefit from Ryulong getting the mop. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 00:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Duplicate[reply]
  48. Support He'll be a good one. rootology (T) 00:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Huge asset to counter-vandalism efforts; I will heartily encourage you, Ryu, to work on civility and AGF-ness, because some people have brought up good points in that regard. On the other hand, your effectiveness as a vandalfighter will be dramatically increased by the extra buttons, and I don't believe I've ever seen you !admin for a bad block. Good luck. :) Luna Santin 01:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. DarthVader 22:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support very dedicated editor, i believe he will make a great admin. Wikipediarules2221 01:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support active vandal fighter. --physicq210 02:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support as per nom. Kitia
  54. Support Impressive record.--Runcorn 21:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose active vandal fighter but too new in my opinion [2] was worriesome, as he never did vandalism, instead he was blocked for 3rr content dispute. I don't see any vandalism from edits like [3] nither. I'll support in 3 months. Jaranda wat's sup 21:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Too new? Your points are valid, but he has been here six months. — FireFox (talk) 21:22, 03 August '06
    I know of an unnamed admin who RfA'd one and a half months after joining the project and who is currently a well respected member of the MopSquad.... :D - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean too new as not experinced enough yet. Those edits are from 2 days ago. Jaranda wat's sup 21:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I guess I don't follow. Which edits? Ryulong has been here 6 months, or are you talking about something else? Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Jaranda's got a point: the second link's edit summary is rvv when it's clearly not vandalism, a big pet peeve of mine; I see rvv used far too much, and for things that are not vandalism.--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The edits he's refering to are above. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Fails WP:civility and WP:assume good faith. The Emory University incident is very disturbing. If he had the mop, I wonder when he would have blocked the anon user and for how long. How many potentially good editors has he turned away from Wikipedia? Looking at his Talk page, I see some other cases of shooting from the hip (reverting content changes). Large volume anti-vandalism probably does that to you -- but administrators need to be able to step back. In addition, I have also seen an instance of what appears to be making up rules (anonymous users and user pages). TedTalk/Contributions 01:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I'm going to have to oppose given the all-too-recent Emory U incident. AdamBiswanger1 03:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per the Emery U diff. Kimchi.sg 03:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. I think that you need a little more time to learn how to identify vandalism accurately. -- JamesTeterenko 03:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Reluctant Oppose. You are a great vandal-fighter, and I see your name often on the vandalism-reporting boards... but rvvs for non-vandalistic edits stick in my craw. I could be convinced to change my !vote, if there was a good reason, though.--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Per above. --Masssiveego 05:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Oppose I see you on IRC countervandalism channel, you do hard work at fighting vandalism. But, I'm afraid you too quick to want rangeblocks for long durations for petty vandalism, too quick to use the summary 'rvv' for all reverts, too quick to assume vandalism and bad faith. When I approached you about AGF on some newer users, you (and I still not sure how much you were joking) stated that you prefer to assume bad faith. You've stated on IRC you hate newbies. There's too much biting on the newbies. You need to get a lot more good faith and wikiettique toward people who make newbie mistakes. Rethink how wiki treats its newer users, who aren't accustomed to policy, and do want to help, but make otherwise silly mistakes. Example: [4], they didn't know. They may not even know the history exists. And if they did, they'd likely be driven off by you telling them to go back to their fanforum. Here, [5] where you attack the anonymous editor for mistyping 'meet' into 'meat'. There's other stuff. Edit summaries, and lack of real project space edits, tagging images with fair use tags w/o also adding fair use rationales... I do not believe you are ready, Sorry. Kevin_b_er 05:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the worst difs you can come up with, then I think you are over reacting.--Andeh 09:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sorry must Oppose per these diffs [6], [7] [8] and other points made by Ted and Kevin_b_er. The diff. shows that the nom is not well acclimated to Wikipedia culture and does not fully understand how to implement policies and guidelines. Also the nom does not have their Wikipedia email activated. FloNight talk 12:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose as per TedE and the Emory University diff. Too recent an incident. Sorry. --T. Moitie [talk] 12:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose In addition to the Emory University incident, I noticed that the nominee reverted this piece of vandalism (if vandalism is the correct term to use) and then a whole five minutes later gave the user an unnecessarily harsh warning, even though the user had already been warned for the same incident. These kinds of things are appearing to occur too often for my comfort. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose based on various oppose diffs. Lapinmies 13:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per Jaranda. I was under the impression that only an admin could review an unblock request, so Ryulong had no business reviewing the block. (Not stopping him leaving his own comment, but to replace the unblock template with the unblock reviewed template was very odd in my book. Especially when it states that the block has been reviewed by an admin. Other things brought up - especially with regard to the attitude to newbies also worry me. I will consider supporting a few months time if you change your attitude. ViridaeTalk 14:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong oppose at this time for all of the above reasons, with no prejudice against supporting the user for a future adminship once he's a little more familiar with the system. I'm concerned by all of the whack-a-vandal admins we're trying to move up lately. -- nae'blis 15:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong oppose per apparent lack of knowledge of basic rules. MonsterOfTheLake 17:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm assuming the main reason your opposing is because of the dispute you had with the user on your userpage.--Andeh 17:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The nominee did not know the user page policies. I believe that it should be taken for granted that any nominee would know the MOST basic policies. MonsterOfTheLake 17:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like the user was warning you for removing warnings from your talk page, and it carried on for a while. Looks like it is still occuring, See MonsterOfTheLake talk page history for more info on this.--Andeh 17:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I'm right in the situation -- but never you mind that, must help out your buddies right? Even if I were at fault here (I'm not, and you could already click on the link from all my sigs, no?), it still has no place in the adminship discussion. You can't simply attack critics. Whatever I do, it still doesn't take away the fact that this user acts on his friends' influence, doesn't contact the user he exerts force on, and did not, until I pointed it out today, know a very simple userpage policy. MonsterOfTheLake 02:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you accusing me of helping out my "buddies", I simply gave the link so other users can see the situation. For someone who has "Wikipedia sucks" as a userpage and has edit summaries like this, I think it's important to give users links to any situations that are occuring so they can make their own decision whether to support or not.--Andeh 12:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed: You appear to have indicated that you do not want any messages on your talk page, and have blanked it repeatedly. Your talk page is in fact the page for other users to communicate with you; it is distinctly seperate from your user page, and its policies are different. Removing warnings and messages indiscriminately from your talk page without archiving them is not permitted; there's even a template for warning users about this, which Ryulong correctly used in your case. I'd suggest you read up on Wikipedia policies and etiquette, MonsterOfTheLake. --Emufarmers(T/C) 12:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose due to fresh improper rvv use, per above Oppose diffs. Please review our policies. Vandalism generally occurs when the editor clearly and intentionally, in his/her own mind, intends to reduce the quality of WP. Just posting something many would disagree with is not vandalism. After you show understanding of this issue for a couple of months, I would support the nomination. We do need vandalism fighters and thank you for the effort - don't give up! Crum375 20:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Mild Oppose Not good awnsers to the questions, and also per above. Maybe later. --WikieZach| talk 23:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Polite oppose. An excellent editor, but one who needs to work on civility some more. Not everyone who makes a bad edit does so out of assholishness. DS 02:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per basically all of the above diffs. I'm concerned about the newbie-biting, I really don't want an admin doing that. Maybe in a few months if the civility problems are resolved. BryanG(talk) 06:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Sorry, but just on my rather short observations, I don't feel this editor is ready. KOS | talk 11:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Switch to oppose. I find it irksome when a candidate's apologists "debate" oppose voters. That, on top of the aforementioned incivility tips me to oppose. Editor needs to tone it down a bit and develop a more urbane approach. Please note my comments under my stricken "suport" vote. Thanks  :) Dlohcierekim 14:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment to more fully explain my vote change. I believe the User:MonsterOfTheLake affair, coming on the heels as it does of the Emory affair, shows this user is not ready for adminship. It is another example of overly aggressive over reaction and mistaking a difference of opinion or ignorant error for vandalism. Instead of seeking a meeting of the minds, he tries to bludgeon others into obedience. His apologists do not help my confidence either. Rushing in their zeal to argue with oppose voters, they make me wonder if he seeks adminship more for their benefit than for that of Wikipedia as a whole. Cheers.  :) Dlohcierekim 11:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose don't think he is ready yet, my own experience is of being rather too quick of the mark, requests for page protections and blocks which are in my view premature even if they sometimes ultimately prove right. --pgk(talk) 16:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per Emory and especially [9]. Not only Jaranda's worries about it being 3RR instead of Vandalism, and thus an unblock might have been okay in some circumstances, but importantly, the fact that non-admins should not be denying unblocking. The confusion over 3RR/Vandalism was one good reason why admins should handle this, not to mention the actual wording of ((unblock)), which states that "one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request." He was not an administrator, and in my opinion, he needs a bit more time before he becomes one. Ral315 (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per FloNight and Ral315. Editor cannot yet be trusted to follow wiki-process, and always to enforce NPOV. Xoloz 16:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. oppose as per Ral315, and diffs supplied by tariqabjotu, etc Pete.Hurd 21:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Weak Oppose per Ral315, and other diffs above. He's doing valuable vandal-fighting, but I'd like to see a slightly more civil tone than I see in some of those edits. I would support in two or three months if there are no recurrences; Mike Christie 22:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose constructive criticism: please remember to think twice before reverting as potential vandalism. -- Samir धर्म 06:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. He is clearly a hard-working editor, and I would not oppose for making a mistake. Heck, not even a BIG mistake, if he owned up to it and learned from it (which he did in his comments). But I see a poor attitude toward new users to this project, which has an immeasurably larger negative impact than making a revert mistake. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Sorry, I know I've gotten a lot of good vandalism tips from you on #vandalism-en-wp, but at this point, given the concerns raised above, I feel it is best that your counter-vandalism actions be filtered through a current admin until you can demonstrate better judgement on how you would use the tools yourself. --Cyde Weys 01:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. O per Ral's diff - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Mild oppose. He is well intentioned, but I know the user on IRC. He is a little quick to make judgement calls on blocking to give to admins, when blocks aren't merited. I think, if given the tools, some unjust blocks could be made.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Unfortunate Oppose for his use of the F-bomb in an edit summary. A similar scenario was discussed in the recent RFA for HighwayCello (talk · contribs · count). --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 22:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. High edit count but 0 FA? :( -- Миборовский 23:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "FA"? o_O Ryūlóng 23:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Featured article. Miborovsky seems to be saying that only those with a Featured Article should be admins. :) Dlohcierekim 00:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh... Is it necessary that admins or people wanting to be an admin have or work on a featured article? Or is it just a really odd Support/Oppose criterion? Ryūlóng 00:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I have my opinion. I think you should judge for yourself. You might want to look at the conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Requirements_for_RfA. Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 04:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose per the comments above and the incidents reported by Jaranda (above) and Xyzzyplugh (below). These leave me with an uncomfortable feeling about providing this nominee with the extra tools. Agent 86 17:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose per above complaints - assuming good faith is pretty important to Wikipedia, and it looks as though this user clobbered a newbie in the Emory University incident. - Bootstoots 22:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Strong neutral The above-referenced incident ([10]) is troubling, given the apparent good faith and earnesty of the anon, only to be crushed with a ((blatantvandal)) tag, or something of the like. I would call that biting the newbies. I also do not see any evidence of familiarity with policy. AdamBiswanger1 21:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Moved to Oppose[reply]
  1. Neutral Great vandalfighter. We're frequently on IRC at the same time and his dedication to keeping vandalism off of Wikipedia is strong. My only concern is that I've witnessed him being both uncivil and uncool during intense bouts of vandalism against him ([11] edit summary). I have no problem with venting in the vandalism channels, as that's one of their functions -- to support each other during the fight. But when it spills onto Wikipedia it can be a problem. I do not doubt his intent, but being given admin tools may set the stage for more violent reactions. I had informed him of the relevant policies on IRC right after he made this edit, so I am reluctant to oppose as he has had sufficient time to read up on stuff like this, and has made no similar edits since then that I can find. But change doesn't always happen fast either, so I'm also reluctant to support. Just some advice: when you're stressed out from editing, take a break and do something else -- play computer games, take a bike ride, do some housework, anything. Staying cool has less to do with never getting riled up, and more to do with recognizing when you are about to explode and finding another outlet for it. I like to play Sauerbraten and pretend the ogres are vandals. =) --Chris (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral per most of the oppose votes. Maybe he could unlearn some newbie-biting habbits while an admin, but maybe a good month of using more good faith and more non-vandal patrolling would be better.Voice-of-All 07:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral per opposition thoughts. Looks like a promising frontline vandal fighter, but could do with a few months of higher levels of civility before being trusted with the tools. —Xyrael / 11:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. Numbers are impressive, history as vandal-fighter shows heart in the right place. But, I can not support when incivility raises its head. If you can convince Ted then I'll change my vote. Ifnord 16:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral Very unsure from above. Attic Owl 04:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral Very actiuve vandalfigther but oppose votes raise concern. --Pilotguy (roger that) 14:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral - I have decided to be neutral on this one. On the one hand, Ryulong is an active vandal fighter and has worked hard to fix the mess they make, yet having seen some of the reasons in the Oppose section including the user's attitude towards new users, I have withdrawn my vote, favouring instead to sit on the fence. Wikiwoohoo 21:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral I have never participated in a Request for Adminship discussion before, and I'm not sure exactly what the requirements for Adminship should be, so I won't be voting. However, I have myself observed what I found to be a potential problem with Ryulong. See User_talk:Cute_1_4_u#A_note. His introductory note, suggesting that Cute_1_4_u essentially leave wikipedia, I find to be unacceptable. Then, when she defended herself, stating that she was improving wikipedia and that she writes multiple articles every day, he responded with "Whether or not you create those articles doesn't mean you are improving the Encyclopedia. Those articles can be about nonsense, or they can be serious. You can write an article about a cookie you are eating or you can start an article about something that has just appeared on a national news program. Creating articles and edit counts are not important. You should focus on quality over quantity". Now, I understand that Cute_1_4_u has been misbehaving, shall we say, she's repeatedly posted copywritten text from other websites, even after being told not to. On the other hand, she's only 11 years old, and she has created a number of non-plagiarized articles, as well as many hundreds of decent edits to articles, so she is not a vandal, just a kid who needs to be watched over. Suggesting that she leave wikipedia, or that her articles aren't high enough quality, are both inappropriate and counterproductive. My concern is that Ryulong, having spent so much time in vandal fighting, has taken on too harsh of an attitude towards those who might be breaking the rules. Having said all this, though, he's obviously overall an asset to wikipedia, and administrator or not, wikipedia is better off thanks to his work. --Xyzzyplugh 23:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure if it is right or wrong to reply, but I was not suggesting that Cute 1 4 u were to leave Wikipedia. I was using a template devised by WAvegetarian to be given to users who treat Wikipedia more like a social networking site such as Myspace. I then proceeded to explain myself to her repeatedly to explain what I meant, but she continually took it as a "Don't edit Wikipedia" message. She and another user (who has been blocked many times due to admission to sockpuppet accounts and personal attack violations) were both given the same message, and I kindly tried to explain to them the true meaning, none of which they took to heart. Ryūlóng 23:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it to be a terrible template to use, unless directed towards someone who is, in fact, only using wikipedia as a myspace account. Towards someone who has been a regular editor for a few months, with 1000+ edits, I think it's totally inappropriate. I think the fact that both Cute 1 4 u and whoever else you were warning got pissed off about the template demonstates my point. It may be that I'm wrong, though, and that I'm overreacting to this, I'll leave that for others here with more wikipedia experience to decide. --Xyzzyplugh 00:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral - While I do not think that Ryulong would abuse the mop, I am concerned by several things. First of all, many of the above diffs are a little worrisome. However, more concerning to me is Kevin's allegation that: "When I approached you about AGF on some newer users, you (and I'm still not sure how much you were joking) stated that you prefer to assume bad faith. You've stated on IRC you hate newbies." I am concerned that Ryulong may fail to assume good faith (especially in the case of newcomers) and "scare" them off. The Emory situation is far too recent for my peace of mind. However, I strongly believe that this user would never purposely abuse the powers and once he gets a bit better at assuming good faith, I will certainly support him. Srose (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral per misuse of that template to try and intimidate someone off the project, and other concerns listed above. --Guinnog 00:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As I stated earlier, I was not using the template to try to intimidate anyone off of the project. The users who I had given the messages to have a near equal balance of edits in the Main article space and the user and user talk spaces. They were utilizing Wikipedia more as a way to make friends and play games with each other as much as they were contributing to the project, including making "friend lists" and at least one user made an imposter account of a famous person (I'm not exactly sure of this practice on MySpace, but I do know that the same thing is done on Facebook; Aquaman went to UM for a few months, and Mahatma Gandhi still does, and he also goes to Dartmouth College, Boston College, Purdue University, Louisiana State University, Bard College, Newstead Wood School, University of Pennsylvania, and American University), which was proven through a checkuser. In fact, I have improved the template to make it an even softer warning than it was to begin with (WAvegetarian was once told that the warning was too soft before I asked him if I could modify it). The updated template can be found here. Ryūlóng 00:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a bit better but I still don't like it. Was there a community consensus to introduce this template? Also, what happened to WP:AGF? --Guinnog 01:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WAvegetarian showed this myspace warning template at the bootcamp IRC channel. When I saw the actions of the users through the constant conversation at the bootcamp channel and their extreme use of ((helpme)), we would constantly find their games. I decided that the template could be introduced to these two first, as they were focusing on "GUESS MY NAME" contests between each other on their user talk pages (along with actual rule violations that they have been warned for, and blocked for as well). Ryūlóng 01:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry for not assuming good faith myself there; I had no right to say you were 'trying to' do anything as I cannot read your mind. I was influenced by the fact that the recipient was a little kid. I still very strongly dislike the template and think you applied it unwisely. Just sorry about how I expressed myself there. I wish you well. --Guinnog 02:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That is all right. I have found out that the user(s?) is 11 years old, and that they are fairly good contributors to the project. It is just when a good portion of their contributions are focused in the user and user talk spaces, sending each other message along the lines of "Yo, let's be friends," and making a subpage that is specified and named as a chatroom (that may have been a different user, but still in the same boat as the users I sent the messages to) is going against one of the precepts of what Wikipedia is not and what is against the policy of what is not allowed on user pages (although I am unsure as to whether or not the guidelines set there includes what goes on user talk pages). Ryūlóng 02:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral I've tussled with this for days, and I can't decide. He's a terrific vandal fighter - no question. I've made my share of mistakes in reverting, particularly when I first started, so I know what that feels like. But I share Adam's concerns about premature blocks. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 23:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral Ive thought quite a bit about this one (thus the lateness in posting). Ryu demonstrates great tenacity in vandalism reverts and notification, however admins need to display a certain amount of diplomacy and civility above and beyond regular editors, by virtue of their access to the flamethrower (block) together with the mop. If in the coming short-term Ryu demonstrates a bit of mellowing, I'd be glad to support his next RfA. -- Avi 18:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category