Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryulong 3: Difference between revisions

Voice your opinion (36/6/2); Scheduled to end 06:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong (talk · contribs) – Ladies and Gentlemen, I offer you Ryulong. Ryulong has over 40,000 edits, of which, 20,000 are in the mainspace. Ryulong, would make the perfect sysop, and not for these reasoning of edits alone! Ryulong has had (2) prior RfA's, the latest of which he withdrew himself to fix issues which had come up so that he could assure the community he would be a better sysop ( 1 , 2 ). Of which he has made the better of, and improved vastly upon. He has assisted users, while still remaining a stern threat against vandals. ( 1 , 2 ). There is not a day where he is not requesting an admin assist him with a CSD, Vandal, or other issue which requires a mop. Ryulong, has also contributed greatly to Super Sentai,City of Heroes, and getting {{okina}} visible for IE users. All of the listed contributions are just a VERY small sample of the countless contributions he has made. I would trust Ryulong with the sysop tools, and for the above reasons you should too! Somitho 06:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination from MichaelBillington (talk · contribs)

Ryulong is one of the most active users on Wikipedia. Since he joined almost a year ago (6 Feb 2006), he has clocked up a monumental 40,200 edits, all well spread across the different namespaces. He is a very active vandal fighter, having reverted countless instances of non-constructive edits, and warned accordingly. To give you an idea of how much Wikipedia could benefit from Ryulong having the sysop flag, he has over 3,000 edits to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism - imagine how much faster stopping those users would be if we a Ryulong with a sysop flag. (He has managed to create a backlog on that page several times) He doesn't just revert vandalism either, he has also been active in writing & cleaning up articles in areas such as Pokémon and Power Rangers, among others. He previously withdrew an RfA back in October of '06, and failed one in August of the same year. I believe Ryulong has the experience needed to carry out administrative duties, and that Wikipedia will benefit greatly from him being a sysop. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 06:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-co-nomination from Keitei

In addition to a browser-crashing edit count, Ryulong is familiar with policy and practice. He is active in article editing as well as fighting vandalism. He has recently begun Wikipedia:WikiProject Tokusatsu, generated a mascot with a free license (experience with freeing images +++), and cleaned up several related articles. I hear he is very active on WP:AIV and he spams IRC all the time with admin requests. He is helpful with newcomers and leeching oldtimers alike and is courteous with every request. I have always known him to be not just civil, but respectful of even the maddest contributors. Giving him +sysop would not only make a lot of sysops' lives easier, but would be a benefit to all of Wikipedia as well. Besides, anyone who likes Totally Spies is alright with me. --Keitei (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also –

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ryulong

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ryulong 2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk • contribs) 10:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My statement on prior requests

Of the many points brought up in my past requests for adminship, was my tendency to bite new users while on recent changes patrolling. I have been curtailing this aspect of my Wikipedia edits by working on articles and assuming good faith for some newbie or IP edits. I have also (occasionally) helped out on the Wikipedia IRC help channel (#wikipedia-bootcamp) by responding to requests at {{helpme}} or to users who show up in the channel, a channel I may continue to frequent.

Another issue that is brought up is my zealousness to dealing with some editors, particularly when I deal with either malformed, vandalous, or incomplete requests in CAT:RFU. If I see "WTF? I'm not blocked!" and there's no block log, I tell the user to utilize the autoblock template. If I see a blank one, I <nowiki> it and help the user complete it. If I see, "[Insert admin] is a [insert profanity]" I revert and/or decline it, all of which I do to help the project.

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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I would continue assisting in dealing with the various levels of vandalism that have been hitting Wikipedia as of late, which has primarily been dealing with sockpuppets of banned users as well as the shock image vandalism (which has somewhat been made moot with the new cascading protection). I was even subject to an emergency sysopping at the Commons due to the use there to vandalize Wikipedia. I will also assist in the various XfD logs and constant backlogs such as CAT:CSD, CAT:RFU, and the (recent [to the best of my knowledge]) massive backlogs of images that lack a source, licensing, fair use rationale, orphaned, etc.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I am particularly pleased with my work to keep two of the newest articles I work with, Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive and Juuken Sentai Gekiranger both free of unsourced speculation and filled with references, be it to images, actors' blogs, actors' profiles at talent agencies, etc., so that some day, these articles could be considered good, or even featured. As Somitho and Keitei state, I have been primarily working with the Super Sentai, City of Heroes, and Tokusatsu so that they are also improved from their prior states. Also stated by Somitho, I was the individual who helped make Template:Okina visible on those who use Internet Explorer, which is currently being used on the main page for the Selected Anniversary on Queen Liliʻuokalani. I have also been expanding 30 Sentai Encyclopedia to a great degree with various other editors as to keep track of the clip show that commemorates Super Sentai. In this process I try to understand what is going on in the Japanese clips, try to get as much of the original Japanese to incorporate as text in the article, and figure out what song is playing in the background (a part of the article added by another editor that I have continued to work on).

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have been in some conflicts over editing in the past. When this usually happens, I distance myself from the project, and just surf the internet or chat with friends. This is how I would continue to deal with such stresses that come from being entrenched in a certain part of the project.

General comments

Discussion

Support

1. Nom Support I of course support the RfA Somitho 07:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Go go gadget support! --Keitei (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support per Michael Billington's reasoning as co-nominator >_> Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 07:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. First non-nom support! Definitely, the noms have stated my case. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 07:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strong Support. Excellent vandal-fighter, and he makes considerable effort to clean up articles that need it. A true asset to Wikipedia. jgp ^T_C 07:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Weak support, seems kinda soon since the last one, but marked improvements. – Chacor 07:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Changed to oppose. – Chacor 12:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Support per nomination. Flyingtoaster1337 07:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support has my trust. An excellent contributor who will make an excellent admin. Gwernol 07:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Strong Support an outstanding candidate with experiance with clear vision and need for admin tools in the fight against vandalism. --Matthew 08:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support - not going by edits, but will definitely make a good admin because of his/her vandal fighting. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 08:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support - per nom. Valued contributor, excellent person, will use the tools wisely and efficently. — Editor at Large^(speak) 08:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Strong Support - you can be the first to have my new signature on an RfA. --Kind Regards -Heligoland 08:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support, although the user has too many edits :-) Kusma (討論) 08:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. SUPPORT!" This guy is gooooood. --CableModem^_^ 09:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose not enough edits Changing to Support ;) --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 09:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support- I will overlook your very low edit count. JorcogaYell! 09:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Rarely has a mop been earned through so much janitorial work. Anyone who can make 40,000 edits without getting banned is doing something right. -Will Beback · † · 09:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. SUPPORT! Ryu for president! w00t w00t!. rxKaffee 09:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support per Will. yandman 09:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Loooong overdue Experienced, trustworthy, dedicated. What more do we need? Mop please! --Dweller 09:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. SUPPORT Based On Refferal of Soms, High Barnstar And Edit Count! ChrisBradley 09:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support based on my personal experience with him, which has been quite positive. He already acts functionally as an admin in many ways, and I trust his judgment will remain as precise once he is formally granted the tools as it is now. --tjstrf talk 09:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support. I wish you to show that concerns raised in the previous RFAs do not apply to you. Conscious 09:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. I was initially hesitant about giving my input into this RfA, however I recognise the importance of giving people second-chances when they make mistakes, and giving +sysop to users where Wikipedia will benefit from said action. Hence, I strongly support this RfA and encourage other !voters to not look at the issues brought up at Ryu's last RfA, but rather the improvements Ryu has made in his character and editing. It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities; Ryulong may be slightly snappish on the odd occasion, but has shown over the last two months or so that he has the tempermant also to ensure that any bitey incidents are avoided to the best of his ability. That is enough for me, and I hope it will be for others. Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, and I appeal to all those who may be considering opposing Ryulong for actions prior to his last RfA withhold their opposal, and rather evaulate the substantial changes he has made in his personality, conversing style and general editing practices. He who cannot forgive breaks the bridge over which he himself must pass. Think of the benefits to Wikipedia, in conjunction with Ryulong's improvement, and not any percieved opposal based on occasional misdeeds an age (in Wikitime) ago. We all make mistakes - even the best of us, and I could reference one highly-regarded user whom basically everyone on Wikipedia respects (and no, not Jimbo) - but a blanket statement will suffice, and this blanket statement includes this nomination. Good luck Ryulong. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. This could have been stronger, but meh. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Lame not enough edits joke — Werdna talk 10:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support - Great experience working with the editor, and although a bit over-zealous sometimes, theres nothing holding me back from support. — Floria L 10:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support: I've seen him around in a lot of domains, and he comes across as a very determined, hardworking but fair editor, who could make great use of the admin tools (especially vandal fighting). Fram 10:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. This should've came earlier, but there was an edit conflict. Very Large Shivan Support aka. Ultra-Extreme Support; oh yes, he's been very helpful indeed. When Torchic was the Featured Article of the Day, he was almost always the first to respond to vandalism...like how AntiVandalBot would've responded if it wasn't a scripted bot. He's very helpful, civil and follows Wikipedia rules. As I write this comment, I'm checking his Contributions; it is very unnerving to see how many reverts and edits he can make within the space of a minute. Keep this up, good sir! Surely you deserve the mop! You've certainly got the Wikipediholism for it. -- Altiris Exeunt 11:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support fine editor who is always up for helping other people RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support looks like he is going to be a great admin and a helpful new member in the admin forces. I'm impressed with his diligence and help in AIV. ← ANAS ^Talk? 12:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support Terence Ong 12:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support per nominators. S.D. ¿п? § 12:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support - one of those genuine "thought they were already" ones --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support It would take a load off WP:AIV. Agathoclea 14:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support

Oppose

1. Oppose with regret A fine editor, but ofte nnot emollient enough to be a successful admin.--Brownlee 10:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Three words - what the hell? – Chacor 10:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   He thinks Ryulong doesn't calm other editors down enough (not that Ryulong himself isn't calm enough). yandman 10:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Erhm, you're opposing him for not being made of vaseline? Or is this a figurative oppose, claiming that he resembles nitroglycerin more than glycerine itself? If so, I don't think that's his fault so much as the fault of the users he plays opposition to. I've never seen him be incivil to anyone who wasn't a blatant troll. --tjstrf talk 10:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Weakish Oppose I just have concerns over judgement. For example, removing User:Tennis expert unblock request (diff) after Tennis expert was erroneously labelled a sock-puppet. Denying unblock requests is a task that should be reserved to admins. There is no evidence of Ryulong discussing this matter on-wiki before he removed Tennis expert's request. Ryulong also tried to delete articles that Tennis expert had worked on (diff) because he was a "banned user". Catchpole 12:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Weak oppose, changed from weak support, per Catchpole. I agree that Ryulong did not make good judgements regarding Tennis expert, and that was concerning - and not even making an effort to listen to those who argued that Tennis expert couldn't possibly be C14u? Hmm... gives me second thoughts. – Chacor 12:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Firm oppose. Ryulong, would you please care to explain this? Very uncharacteristically effectively gaming the system regarding 3RR. – Chacor 12:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Forgive me if I'm just being unbelievably dense and can't see it, but what did Ryulong do incorrectly there? All he did was confirm a 3RR report. --BigDT 13:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Let me quote the relevant statements:

   Completely inappropriate behaviour by Ryulong, as well – [1], [2], [3], using scripts to revert other users. Use the anti-vandalism tool only for the job they are authorised for. Your actions potray that you were trying to induce the other users into breaching WP:3RR and getting blocked. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

   – Chacor 14:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   You can't induce somebody into violating 3RR. Others, including three administrators, also reverted this individual. Ryulong shouldn't have used scripts to do it, but one admin in that thread used the rollback button and in all honesty, there wasn't that much more to be said. A copy-paste fork is not the way to undue a contested move. --BigDT 14:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose tons and tons of talk page comment removing from this user. Anomo 13:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose per Chacor and Anomo.--Runcorn 13:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. I see little familiarity with process and little edits in process space other than with an automation script. Gnoming is good but there's more to adminning than that. >Radiant< 14:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Absolutely, but if this user is an exemplery vandal patroller and spends a considerable time of the day (?) reverting vandalism and making reports to WP:AIV, why not give him the tools?. Maybe he could add himself to Category:Administrators open to recall? — Nearly Headless Nick 14:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   • I don't understand why you're linking to Clown here, except that I recall also opposing Clown for lack of experience (and supporting on a later nom, iirc). I don't believe particularly much in requiring nominees to join AOTR, nor, for that matter, in AOTR itself. >Radiant< 14:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral. Something feels off, but I don't know what. Maybe something to do with all the biting and civility issues raised in the last RFA, which was only just over 2 months ago. Nowhere near enough to make me go for oppose, though. Proto::► 11:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral based on this edit war just a day ago. It seems that some of the issues of civility and biting haven't been addressed. Metros232 14:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]