Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ryulong 3

message: User:Ryulong
      run at Wed Jan 17 08:51:16 2007 GMT
Category talk:			4
Category:			137
Help talk:			1
Help:				2
Image talk:			5
Image:				737
Mainspace			20581
MediaWiki talk:			4
Portal:				9
Talk:				2559
Template talk:			67
Template:			758
User talk:			8603
User:				1490
Wikipedia talk:			189
Wikipedia:			5093
avg edits per article		2.70
earliest			20:12, 6 February 2006
number of unique articles	14879
total				40239
From http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Ryulong&site=en.wikipedia.org --Kind Regards -Heligoland 08:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

message: Simply put, Ryulong does a ridiculous amount of anti-vandalism.  It's almost comical that he doesn't have all of the tools that he needs to operate at the fullest.  Normally RFA is about determining trust; I don't see any trust problems whatsoever with Ryulong.  He's been here for a long time, he's done a lot of work, and he's well-qualified to get the tools to use them in his anti-vandalism efforts.  --Cyde Weys 17:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A request for adminship is based on how much the user can be trusted with the tools. Volume of edits doesn't really have anything to do with that. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, I haven't voted here and have no axe to grind, Sam, but I don't really think that's what Cyde said. Chick Bowen 17:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant volume of edits relating to vandalism, not just volume of edits generally - it's the proportion of those edits which give cause for concern which is important. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how proportion of counter-vandalism work is a relevant metric.  CSCWEM did a lot of counter-vandalism, but he also did a lot outside that narrow area, more than most RFA people, yet he got opposed by some people because he also reverted "too much" vandalism!  It's absurd.  And frankly, if the metric is valid at all, it really means that someone who does more counter-vandalism needs the tools more.  How often does an article writer really need the tools?  Rarely.  How often does a dedicated vandal fighter need the tools?  Every few minutes.  --Cyde Weys 05:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially just now when I fought at least three Primetime sockpuppets single handedly, blindfolded, and he had popups.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To further explain my support 

message: This was in the correct space that anon's are explictedly asked to put their comments in. It was improperly removed and seems like "anon-discrimination" to me. I don't care how much "blatant" vandalism you see. An IP address does not mean-shoot on sight. Check the user history and anyone can see that I'm certainly not a SPA and my comments was neutral and non-attacking (as they were in most other RfA's that I have commented on). As an anon user my experience is directly affected by admins and I do have natural consideration and concern for those who have admin tools. I think actions like the careless blanking of my comment should be condemed by any Admin candidate. 205.157.110.11 01:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've readded it. As it's "neutral", it probably wouldn't be a problem if you put it in the neutral section, because it's not a vote, per say (and yes, they are votes on RfA, as opposed to xfd's, unfortunately). Patstuarttalk|edits 01:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry about that. Someone thought it'd be funny to derail this with a bunch of single purpose accounts, and that harms editors such as yourself.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone re-add my comments to the "General Comment Section" ? 

message: From what I read right here, I seriously think that this candidate is not suitable to become admin. He's admin-wannable even before he acquires administration power. I will not be surprised that when he becomes an admin he will block User:Tennis expert as a revenge over this dispute. This kind of action leaves a lot to be desired. Keep in mind that my judgement is based on this phrase: admins status are not accquired by edit counts, but his/her abilities to serve the community and make it better.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by OhanaUnited (talk • contribs).
:(edit conflict, reply to comments above this one) You have got to be kidding me.  Let's summarize all of the above with some actual facts:
:#A user is blocked by CheckUser evidence.  Administrators are instructed never to touch CheckUser blocks because CheckUsers have much more information than administrators do.  Ryulong had nothing to do with the block or CU investigation.
:#Ryulong reverted edits and added CSD tags in accordance with the block issued by Dmcdevitt.  This is entirely supported by policy. I personally don't agree with the policy, but that is neither here nor there — it's what policy clearly states.
:#Ryulong declines the unblock request because the blocking CheckUser had already been notified by J.Smith, which is exactly what is supposed to happen in this situation.  No administrator can take further action until the CheckUser investigates, so the unblock request was no longer helpful, and would have wasted the time of every user or admin who reviews CAT:UNBLOCK.
:#When asked to clarify his actions, Ryulong responds courteously and explains exactly why he did what he did, and changed his wording and actions in light of the criticism/questions, rather than simply ignoring it.
:#The CU investigates and rescinds the block.
:Now could you explain to me, where in that sequence of events, Ryulong did anything wrong?  Anywhere, please?  Please note that I have not voted in this RfA; I have no dog in this fight.  I have a few reservations and am choosing to abstain this go-round, but opposing due to this non-incident is ridiculous, as is assuming an indescribable amount of bad faith by saying that if promoted, he would issue a revenge block.  Just astounding.  —bbatsell ¿? 08:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bbatsell, since I was the administrator who flouted this "policy": can you please point me in its direction? before, during, and after, I looked for it but could not find any policy about what to do with Checkuser blocks. -- Renesis (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe Template:Checkuserblock would help? Somitho 09:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break for Bbatsell

message: What I was doing at the time was covered by Wikipedia:Banning policy which means that a reincarnation of a banned user has all of his/her edits undone and any pages created deleted per the general criterion for the pages created by banned users. As was said on the main page: 
I am sorry that I did not look deeper into your edits to put everything together (for all I knew, Cute 1 4 u could have gotten interested in tennis instead of That's So Raven), but what I was doing was following Wikipedia policy. There is nothing that normal administrators can do when dealing with a block performed by someone with checkuser priveleges, and I suggested that you seek another checkuser to confirm/refute/whatever, and this could have been performed by e-mailing someone listed at Special:Userlist/checkuser or the mailing lists. I did not give you this explicit information at the time, and I apologize for not doing so. As is said, there is nothing that could ever be done by a normal administrator, and Dmcdevit did what was necessary to change everything.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And to OhanaUnited, I will never do such a thing. I haven't even had any sort of contact with Tennis expert in the time period since then, and I will never do anything out of spite. Please assume some good faith here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break for Ryulong

message: Eh?  The  template says this: Administrators: Replace this template with one of the following:.  It explicitly names who should do the template.  (I do understand that some admins appreciate your work there.)  Also, I don't think anybody disputes that you follow policy; much of the oppose votes cite WP:BITE.  You can follow policy but still be biting. Hbdragon88 09:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy trifecta states that If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them. I do so, and in the extremely rare case that was Tennis expert's block, I did so, but was wrong.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, WP:IAR.  But there are some areas that IAR really just can't be invoked.  Non-admins cannot close TFDs or AFDs, even with a snowball keep; these go to DRV and the debate is usually reopened because a non-admin stepped in.  I feel that unblocks should be handled the same way. (I'm also unsurprised that you answered within five minutes.) Hbdragon88 09:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-administrators can WP:SNOW AFDs. Not to stick beans in my nose, but I recently did deal with speedy closing this, as it did not have a snowball's chance in hell, and they were all, "Keep," "Strong Keep," "Speedy Keep," etc. in that situation, all in the span of 48 hours.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Unless you're claiming that Tennis expert's block was valid and improved Wikipedia, which I thought we'd worked out it didn't, I don't see how WP:IAR in the words you quote applies here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I ignored all rules at the time, not knowing anything beyond the fact that there was nothing that could be done concerning the checkuser block. It certainly turned out that IAR then was a bad idea.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 11:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: In a nutshell, it wasn't a bad idea to review the request at the time. All I saw was "Cute 1 4 u sockpuppet through checkuser" (I had dealt with that user during the summer). After all of what happened, I found out I was wrong, undid what I did, and then everything (I hope) has worked out for the better with Tennis expert's Wikipedia experience.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 11:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Which is unfortunate.  To me, the unblock template is somewhat sacred.  It is one of the few things that on Wikipedia that explicitly states who can respond to it (admins).  I just reread through the deletion process guides, and they merely refer to "volunteers" being able to close discussions (which includes non-admins and admins, not only admins like I wrote eariler).  If Tennis expert's block was that cut-and-dried, an admin just should have done it.  Instead, it's spawned this massive discussion.  Uninformed people are going to ask, admins will have to reexplain why Ryulong's denial was okay, and so forth.  Far more time here - this RFA in particular, as this happened a month after Ryulong withdrew from his second RFA - has been spent discussing Ryulong's actions than if an admin had gotten to it first. Hbdragon88 08:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, now everyone (who was here at least), knows. Yes, anyone can take this kind of action. Hopefully this issue won't come up again in future. (which on wikipedia typically means: it'll show up again roughly 3 months from now :-P ) --Kim Bruning 07:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, quite true. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a backlog at requests for unblock, and been two inches from doing some denials. But having seen so many people get mad at Ryulong for it (in this and previous RfA's), I figured it's better to let the sleeping bear rest (or some other silly idiom; gosh, it's late). Patstuarttalk|edits 08:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah I figure that that's exactly what we don't want, eh! Please help with the backlog! --Kim Bruning 08:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Groan*, do you have your explicit administrator permission? I'd hate to have someone get mad at me for turning someone down. Patstuarttalk|edits 08:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  At some point in the past, it was a requirement to become an admin. You had to show a situation where someone had gotten mad at you for taking an administrative-type-action, and how you resolved it neatly. ;-) --Kim Bruning 08:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break for Hbdragon88

message: The result of this RfA is being discussed at WP:BN. ViridaeTalk 08:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, WT:RFA, let's keep it in one place. – Chacor 08:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Concur. Good show! Thanks Chacor! :-) --Kim Bruning 08:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The result of this RfA

message: I am starting to get disappointed in how people handle things here. A consensus is not a vote, a consensus is simply a determination of a debate. Ryulong has been granted the tools, and has promised to use them well. IF he breaks policy and goes nutso; then take it up with arbcom. Raul654 didn't cabalize it, and his name should not be tarnished over determining consensus. 
Frankly Chacor, I have seen issues with you since your own ArbCom ruling came down and your mop was taken away for policy you broke. I respect your opinions, but you have seem to have come into some attitude issues. 
:Do I support and continue to support Ryulong? Yes.
:Am I worried he may cause issues with blocks? No, or I would not have nominated him.
:Do I hear and recognize the community issues? Yes, of course I do; and they are quite valid. But on the other hand, a consensus has been reached and Ryulong HAS been made an admin. The only way this is going to change is with an ArbCom ruling. 
:Should Ryulong step down? Not at this time, if he shows bad faith and becomes a problem then yes. But stepping down would be a disappointment to those who did support him, and would be a show of bad faith from the community; as he had not done anything to justify a resignation.
I hope we all can make the best of this, and besides cross-posting this to the WT:RFA page, the only time I will post on such issues. Somitho 09:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How the hell is this turning into an attack on me when I'm not the only one who has expressed disappointment at this? This is ridiculous. – Chacor 09:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "I like him" is an unacceptable closing reason.  Period.  ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 09:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realize that it is nearly 5 am in the States (I shouldn't even be up right now)? Let's wait a few more hours so things can be explained by the man who did the act instead of saying the same things over and over, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  He knows. (You saw us talking, earlier :-) ) It'll be fine! Get some sleep! :-) --Kim Bruning 10:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Whether it's a personal attack or not, the problem with stuff like that in general is that it's ad hominen and usually just leads to wikidrama. Thanks for retracting it. Perhaps you could strike it, as well, to hammer home the point.--Kchase T 11:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disappointment

message: I did some quick analysis, not attempting to eliminate single purpose accounts or evaluate reasons, just timing trends.  I measured timing from his acceptance, which was an hour after the nomination.
Where people ended up:
First  24 hours: 65/18/0  78%
After  48 hours: 79/30/3  72%
After  72 hours: 86/32/6  73%
After  96 hours: 98/37/7  73%
After 120 hours: 107/43/7 71%
After 144 hours: 114/50/7 70%
After 167 hours: 125/55/7 69%
Where people were at the time:
First  24 hours: 68/21/5  76%
After  48 hours: 80/34/7  70%
After  72 hours: 86/35/8  71%
After  96 hours: 100/41/7 71%
After 120 hours: 108/46/7 70%
After 144 hours: 114/52/7 69% (at this point he said he would be open to recall)
After 167 hours: 125/55/7 69%
I come away with two findings myself.  First, the percentage was essentially stable from 48 hours to the end of the period.  Second, that there is no reason to think more time would have changed the percentage significantly.  GRBerry 06:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I actually believe this was more stable than usual; my observation is that opposition tends to quickly snowball and grow greater as the rfa continues, precisely becuase people read opposition arguments, and are more emboldened to vote against the candidate. Patstuarttalk|edits 06:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timing trends