Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryulong 2

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

[edit] Ryulong

(27/30/8) Ended 00:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ryulong (talk • contribs) – This user is dedicated, and very experienced, with over thirty thousand edits since February, over fifteen thousand of which are mainspace. He is also a very personable person who is able to make quick decisions when needed. He is also well respected both on Wikipedia and also the Wikipedia IRC. He is a vandal-fighter, an intelligent user, and a definite good person. I'd feel much safer with him as a sysop. I'm also quite sure he wouldn't abuse the tools in any way. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 04:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I am withdrawing this nomination. It is obvious that there are still several flaws in my etiquette on Wikipedia that several users have brought up, and I am not ready now for this online stress.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:39, 31 October 2006 (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 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 help with cleaning out CAT:CSD and CAT:ORFU (which are recently big problems), monitor the XfD logs for discussions in need of closing, as well as continue my efforts in cleaning up vandalism, and clear backlogs at WP:AIV instead of causing them myself.

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

A: I am pleased with my efforts at various articles in the area of Super Sentai and other Japanese television programs (and their English derivatives) to keep the articles as free of unencyclopedic trivia as possible, as well as my plans to start up a WikiProject in this area of interest, that I know of a handful of editors to assist me with in building up, and keeping it running. To start this, I have been working with editors to try and cut down on the size of various articles by splitting them off into their own pages (Ozu Family, Infershia, Ogre Tribe Org, List of GaoRanger characters, Special Police Dekaranger, Alienizer, Sargess, Negative Syndicate, 30 Sentai Encyclopedia, etc.).

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: When I get into conflicts, I try to separate myself from Wikipedia for a period of time and just listen to music or surf the web away from the Wiki. Usually, once I'm done with my massive playlist, I forget why I was stressed in the first place, and I can contribute to the conversations more coherently, than if I write it out when I'm in over my head.

Optional question by Fut.Perf.

4. A number of users have voiced concerns about you having been a bit too trigger-happy with vandalism accusations in the past. I appreciate that among the sheer volume of vandal reverts you do, the occasional mistake is unavoidable. But could you nevertheless comment on what your understanding of vandalism is, and how it has changed since your last RfA, for instance in light of your contributions here (regarding this), or here (which was in reference to a page that had been previously speedied under G5). Also, this edit [1] pointed out by trialsanderrors might warrant some comment, if you could. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A: Well, the Steve Irwin revert, at the time, was based on the proximity to the actual event of his death, which I was not sure of the actual reliability of the statement. Where I may have given him a bv, I more than likely should have asked him to provide information or (if I knew that it was false) {{test2}} or {{verror}}. The Bindi Irwin page is also of a similar situation, it was too close to her father's death, and I was not knowledgeable of the other information (such as in the deletion log or talk page that stated that an article could be made about her). Also, the {{db-g1}} tagging at the Use of biotech... page is my normal response to a new massive addition through my IRC RC patrolling. I later suggested that the page be wikified or cleaned up after the g1 was removed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Optional questions from Malber (talk • contribs)

5. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?

A: WP:IAR and WP:SNOW mean that it would be up to my own discretion to make important decisions, such as deleting something up for XFD if there are maybe 30 delete votes in the span of a day instead of letting the discussion drag on for four more days.

6. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?

A: The only situation where I can see that a punitive block be applied is the evasion of a block through sockpuppetry (such as to continue to violate 3RR), but I think that's still a preventative block (other than reinstating the block performed on the original violator of 3RR). Other than that, I would perhaps impose a punitive block on an account of intermittent, yet repeated violations of Wikipedia policies (which would be indefinite, until the person returns and requests to be unblocked).

7. What criteria do you use to determine whether or not a business article should be deleted under CSD:G11?

A: I would look at the overall layout of the article (if it's wikified, or if its just a mass of text because its a new user who doesn't know about formatting) and then I would try to read the article (if it is in any way legible). If it fails these criteria, I would try a Google search for the company. If it passes that criteria, I'd tag it with a clean-up tag. If it fails, it goes away.

Optional question from Samuel Blanning (talk • contribs)

8. Others have raised the issue of how quickly you archive, and I particularly noticed your archiving just now, where you removed a section where the last post was only ten minutes before you posted (as far as I can tell, you didn't reply or give any reason why you didn't feel it merited a response). One of the subjects was your RfA, which will surely be a current issue for a while yet. Why do you feel the need to archive so quickly, and would you consider changing this practice? My 'oppose' position is not going to be shifted by the answer to this question, but I would still be very pleased to support you in a future RfA, so I would be interested in your answer. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

A: The RFA question was posed last night by AuburnPilot, and I also copied the contents of my response to his/her user talk, and the issue with Bobabobabo was dealt with three times over with the sockpuppetry. I usually don't archive as quickly, but I did not feel a need to really to reply to Bobabobabo, as s/he would have seen my actions on his/her own user talk (reverting threatening edits from the user s/he notified me to).

General comments

• See Ryulong's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

Ryulong's editcount summary stats as of 07:22, October 30th 2006, using wannabe Kate's tool. (aeropagitica) 07:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• First RFA
• I would suggest you use edit summaries a bit more often. If you don't mind, of course. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

  Not a problem, at all.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

1. Support as nominator. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 04:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
2. I see this one daily; strong vandal-fighter, very little by way of error (and even then, it's in good faith). Hand over the bloody mop, already! :) Changing to weak support per Sarah Ewart and others. I would prefer in the face of this evidence that Ryulong wait at least a few more months and gain a better perspective on when not to use the tools; still, I remain (barely) in this column as I do not see the editor intentionally abusing them. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Has seen this user around a lot on WP:AIV. Good vandal-fighting skills. Only one snag: please do warn the vandal first before listing on AIV next time. ;) --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

   Comment By the way, where's the link to your first RfA? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

   Comment It's not too hard to find...it's the same link, only without the 2. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 04:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

   Comment I know that. I'm just too lazy to type backspace on the address bar. :P --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

   Comment Try this link then :-) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 05:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

4. Support, good editor will make a good admin. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 04:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Support - this user is not an admin already?Bakaman _Bakatalk 05:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
6. zOMG Support — Heh, about time! Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 05:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
7. I'll venture a Support. You've done good work. I hope you register for recall tho. You don't have to answer that - I am not interested in strongarming you or whatever, but obviously there were serious concerns about aberrational edits leading to a risk of administrative abuse, so it would make a lot of people sleep easier if you did. Good luck. - crz crztalk 05:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

   Support Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 05:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

   Reluctant switch to oppose Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 06:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

   Strong support. Absolutely. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

8. Support. Just remember to use the tools conservatively at first. ;-) Grandmasterka 05:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Strong Support should have been an admin ages ago already.--Konst.able^Talk 05:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
10. Strong Support. He's going to make an awesome administrator. Alphachimp 05:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
11. Support - Positive contributor, good judgement of late. Summon a mop for Halloween! Georgewilliamherbert 05:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
12. Support evidenced by 30,000 edits --Steve 05:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC) Switched to Oppose per Sarah's analysis and a trawl through Archive 4 --Steve 23:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
13. Support you weren't an admin already? Fooled me. Decent edit count :) CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 06:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
14. Strong Support, Wikipedia would benefit greatly from this user gaining the mop and bucket. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
15. Support - very good user, positive contributions. SunStar Net 07:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
16. edit conflictSupport Let he who has not bitten a single newbie cast the first stone... I don't know, we all get stressed. He's a great vandal fighter, and I think he would benefit from the tools. riana_dzasta 07:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
17. Support on productivity alone. —freak(talk) 07:41, Oct. 30, 2006 (UTC)
18. RYULONG!!! RYULONG!!! BURNINATING THE CRUFT!!! BURNINATING THE VANDALS!!! --Slowking Man 07:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
19. Strong Support. As usual, I always support vandal fighters, as they need the tools VERY MUCH --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!^{Join Esperanza!} 09:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
20. Strong Support. Give the man the mop already—he can only do good things with it. Of course editors are going to make small mistakes every now and then, but that's just a remainder of how we're all human. :-) Khoikhoi 10:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
21. Strong support Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 10:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
23. Support --Alex (Talk) 12:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
24. Support --íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 12:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
25. Strong Support Kari Hazzard (T | C) 15:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
26. Support Excellent user, I believe that he is responsible enough to be more careful henceforth with the trigger-happiness concerns raised by those opposing.--Húsönd 18:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
27. STRONG OPPOSE ONLY 30385 EDITS! NOT NEARLY ENOUGH! ST47Talk 19:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

    sarcasm? ~crazytales56297 ^{O rly?} 23:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

28. Support. --Keitei (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
29. support! about time he became admin ~crazytales56297 ^{O rly?} 23:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Switch to Oppose Review of User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_4 shows him to still be overly aggressive and prone to biting newbies just last month. Vandal warnings for newbie mistakes would become blocks with admin toolsCheers, :) Dlohcierekim 06:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

   Would you mind pointing out a few of the instances there? I've been making as much progress as I can on not biting the newbies, and I do remember rescinding a lot of the messages I had given out after I had been notified of my mistakes.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

   HI, Ryulong. There are several converstions on User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_4 where other users point this out. The page flows pretty well and is a neasy read. It'll take a while dig up the diffs from the talk page and put the links on this page, and my fingers are't working very well. I'll try tomorrow when I'm not working and better rested. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 11:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose - It appears that Ryulong dished out {{bv}} tag to a newbie for switching "s" to "z". For a new user, these sorts of things are common and this appears too aggressive. Sometimes when you are an admin, you may face strong dissent, so I am a bit worried about where you might be too authoritarian. Generally, this wouldn't bother me that much, but you appear to be a vandalism specialist, and the non-roundedness would tip things over the bar on the negative side, as I would have liked to see more writing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose - Good editor, but after reading through the RFA1 and the talk page archives since then I get the impression that Ryulong's trigger finger is still too twitchy[2][3] and s/he still needs to take hints about policies from admins. Type I errors aren't a big issue for a normal editor, but they are pretty much unacceptable for an admin. ~ trialsanderrors 06:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

   In a follow-up, I removed Ryulong's vandalism warning from User talk:Harwood. ~ trialsanderrors 08:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose Rapid edits in very short period. I feel everyone should get a hang of Wikipedia b4 becoming admin. 30000 edits may translate to an editing spree rather than understanding the processes involved in Wikipedia. Too much adrenaline. I won't last long. I suggest more time. If it had been 5000 - 6000 edits in such a short time, I'd have supported. I'm sorry, but I have to oppose. Cheers. -- Chez ^{(Discuss / Email)} • 07:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

   While it may not change your mind, I would like to point out that a good portion of those 30000 edits are vandalism reversions through RC Patrolling (I know that a few thousand are AIV reports :P). I do have a bulk of my edits fixing up articles (over 400 are to Power Rangers: Mystic Force) and the edit counter linked above does show that my significant article edits are focused.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

   I agree; in all fairness, Ryu's been around since February of 2006 and is quite active. I'm pretty sure he's here to stay. Luna Santin 07:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

5. This was a difficult one. You're a great vandalfighter, but sometimes you act before you think (giving in to an EddieSegoura sock over a move of Hurricane Ernesto (2006) to Tropical Storm Ernesto (2006) when it was downgraded, for example, when it's obvious it'd still end up with the Hurricane prefix). Not good. – Chacor 10:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

   Well, that was before I knew that it was

   A) An EddieSegoura sock and

   B) The MoS for tropical cyclone articles that they remain at the name at their highest strength.

   —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

6. Reluctantly Oppose. Ryulong is a very enthusiastical vandal fighter who saved thousands of articles from defacing. Still he in many cases reported to WP:AIV newbees who made honest mistakes, victims of the googlebar blanking, edits that are not vandalism. I would like to see more thoughful attitude to the WP:AIV reporting and then I will happily vote support. Alex Bakharev 10:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose leaning to Neutral — My problem is that there is more to Wikipedia then waging a constant war with vandals, I also see numerous instances where you've failed to use an edit summary on edits, annother problem is your approach to newbs. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose. I have too many concerns about Ryulong's trigger-happiness, and that counts double given the Javascript speed-reverting tools he uses (trigger-happiness can cause even more damage when you have a General Electric minigun). I was especially concerned when Ryulong reported an anon in mid-September for this edit - the removal of some campaign puff from a senator's page. Ryulong used a javascript tool to revert him once twice (the third time he did manage to use an edit summary). (Sample of the material restored by Ryulong: "Senator Raymond A. Meier brings extensive private and public sector experience to his service in the Senate... Meier has served as a leader in promoting economic development initiatives and job growth opportunities... A widely respected member of the Republican party" etc.) When he did justify his restoration of the material, the reason seemed to be "it's a lot of text" which I don't find convincing [4]. Even less convincing was his suggestion that inappropriate material should remain in Wikipedia unless someone finds the time to rewrite it [5]. I hope Ryulong continues his vandal-fighting work, but at the moment I think he should be kept one step away from the block button. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose. I appreciate Ryulong's hard work, but I cannot support. He has a propensity to engage in edit wars with both new and established users and often over issues that seem bizarre. When Giano blanked his talk page, Ryulong began edit warring over restoring it.[6] [7] [8] [9] When I left User:Kyereh Mireku a warning message, Ryulong reverted me.[10]. When I restored my message, Ryulong reverted me again [11]. When I went to his talk page to ask him to stop deleting my talk page comments, he told me he was doing it because Kyereh was blocked before I left the message (he wasn't, he was blocked a few minutes after), but IMO this is completely beside the point. I cannot see any reason to repeatedly delete, from another person's talk page, a non-vandalism, non-disruptive message that has been left by another editor. Forget that I was leaving Kyereh a warning as an administrator, it's not appropriate to do that to any editor: new, established, admin, whatever. Apparently Jimmy has also had some queries about Ryulong's practice of deleting inoffensive comments from other people's talk pages. [12] I'm concerned about his interaction with new people and anons as he has a tendency to use high level warnings when low level ones should be used. He gave User:80.6.32.80 a blatant vandalism warning and listed it at AIV [13] because the anon had changed spelling in the Globalization article from globalization to globalisation. When Ryulong dropped the bv template, the IP had (and still to this day has) no history of vandalism and had made only one prior edit and that was a spelling correction (Septemper > September). If he listed this at AIV, would he have blocked this user if he had the tools??? After Bindi Irwin was deleted, Mike Rosoft posted on the talk page saying that the deletion was without prejudice and a new article could be written. So a new editor, User: Romtobbi, wrote an article and Ryulong promptly redirected it to Steve Irwin and gave Romtobbi a vandalism/nonsense warning. Romtobbi was very upset [14] and I think an apology and retraction was warranted, but it wasn't forthcoming, though Ryulong did consent to Romtobbi removing the warning himself ("If Romtobbi wants, he can get rid of the message. I can't do anything after the fact"), then four minutes later Ryulong archived the discussion saying that he had nothing more to say on the matter. I appreciate and acknowledge Ryulong's hard work, but Adminship isn't a reward. I would like to support Ryulong in the future, but most of these incidents have happened in the last month or so and are just too recent for me to feel comfortable supporting at this time. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Frequently posts cases on AIV that should not be blocked; I can only assume that as an admin, he would block them. Archiving his talk page seemingly more than once a day also worries me. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose per most of what has been said already like Bunchofgrapes' comments directly above me. Reporting users like this [15] as vandalism only accounts on their first and only edit without even placing a warning at the user's talk page? I could only imagine that these such accounts would be blocked on sight if given admin rights. This report, by the way, was from 10 days ago. Metros232 15:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose. Sorry, but no apparent change in attitude since last RfA. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Sorry, but few hours ago he went into a contriversial article and re-inserted a wrong quote [16] that is currently being disputed by many users on the talk page.[17] He simply did that, it would seem to push this own POV, even tho only 1 person (user:Jayjg) was in favor of keeping that statement.(see talk) I'm sorry to say that I dont think that is the action of a responsible editor let alone Admin. Only after he was badgered/hounded by a user on IRC in front of others that he Rev himself[18] I'm afraid that as an admin he may abuse his powers to push his POV into articles. JEBenson 15:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose. I was really eager to post a Support vote, per my promise at the last RFA, after hopefully seeing that Ryulong got the message about what is vandalism and what is not. As a vandal fighter, that is one critical point I would hope he could grasp, certainly after a failed RFA for that very reason. Unfortunately, reading User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_4, as pointed out by others, clearly shows that even recently and certainly post-RFA he is still trigger-happy in labeling vandalism where there is no clear vandalism present. We do need vandal fighters, but part of the fight is to know the difference between good faith edits and vandalism, and certainly an admin candidate would be expected to know that. Crum375 15:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose per Sam Blanning and Sarah Ewart. Sorry to say that the above comments indicate Ryulong is (at least sometimes) both a newbie-biter, and unduly argumentative with established users. In my view, that sort of harshness is an automatic disqualifier for mophood. I hope candidate's temperment mellows with time. Xoloz 15:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose, mostly due to the trigger-happiness issues brought out above. Titoxd^(?!?) 16:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose. There are many legitimate, non-trivial opposition reasons by users above, including over a dozen diffs. I am not convinced that admins tools will be used properly. SuperMachine 17:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
18. 'Oppose. Due to diffs regarding incorrect vandal reporting. Will most probably support you on a future RFA given that you've learned how to be more careful when patrolling. Cheers! zephyr2k 18:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose. per Sarah Ewart's extensive evidence. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 19:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose The evidence other opposer have presented have given me serious pause, indicating you may be a bit too aggrevise in the noble task of vandal fighting. I also am concerned that the number of your edits indicate you may emphasize quantity over quality.-- danntm ^T _C 20:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose - Maybe next time (20:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobabobabo (talk • contribs).
22. Soft Oppose: Excellent editcount within a passable 8½-month stay. However, he doesn't always fill in summaries, and his civility issues are cause for concern. There is more to WP than just vandal patrolling, a lot of which he is involved in. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
23. Strong Oppose You are a fantastic user and an even better vandal fighter, but I can not support you because of your AIV requests. I have blocked a few hundred vandals in my time as admin, and I see that you usually report a good deal of the vandals to AIV. However, most of them do not even have the proper amount of warnings, or they haven't vandalized after their last warning. It always appeared that you were just inflating your edit count with unnecessary reports to AIV, that are just holding us back from working on other projects. Sorry if I sound a bit harsh, but I really can't support someone who I think would probably do unreasonable bans and start edit wars with other users. We just can't have an admin who will probably block in excess and block users unreasonably. Nishkid64 21:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
24. Oppose I am too also concerned with his hostility towards vandals, et al. Great editor, but needs to tone things like this down a bit, such as the premature AIV reports. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 21:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
25. oppose Ryulong has frequently demonstrated, to me at least, that he lumps together new user test and blatant vandalism and treats them all the same, fails to understand that blocks are preventive in nature and not to punish someone and frequently requests blocks that do not have sound reasoning Benon 22:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
26. Incredibly Reluctant Oppose I've seen Ryulong on IRC sometimes, and I know he's a good vandal fighter. But the difs and newbie biting would just be not a good thing for the project. I really hope that you'll take some of the advice from this and your last RFA, and I hope to support next time. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 22:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
27. Per Sarah. - Mike | Trick or Treat 23:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
28. Oppose. A good administrator isn't determined by the number of edits and reverts, but by wisdom and knowledge. I am not convinced that this candidate has demonstrated the wisdom and knowledge that administrators should exhibit. Instead, the evidence above tells me that his enthusiasm for reverting vandals will be directed to blocking newbies for minor infractions. -Amatulic 23:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
29. Oppose per Sarah's analysis and a trawl through Archive 4 --Steve 23:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
30. Oppose. Ryulong appears to have trouble with the distinction between what is blatant vandalism and what is simply inappropriate experimentation. I watch AIV regularly, and I have seen too many instances of Ryulong reporting users who have stopped after a test1, or sometimes with no warnings at all, to be comfortable with the tools in his hands. I would fear for the welfare of our newbies were he to have the ability to block users; being blocked as a vandalism-only account after adding "asdfghjkl" to an article once really doesn't send the message we want. He is simply too trigger-happy for me to support at this time. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral leaning Support To oppose because of one incorrect vandal template out of 30,000 edits seems to be a fairly extreme position. However, User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_4 does show several cases of non-vandal activity being labeled vandalism, as well as a few newbie bites. Before seeing this, I was prepared to give full support, and after a little more of my own research, I may return to that position. I'm very much on the fence. AuburnPilot^talk 06:35, 30 October 2006 _(UTC)
2. Neutral - Excellent vandal fighting however I've noticed when RC patrolling with him, he tends to be a bit too draconian. Also reports some users to AIV, then gives a {{bv}} as an afterthought, e.g. [19] [20]. MER-C 09:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Leaning towards support, but neutral waiting for clarifications with respect to concerns raised. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral, leaning toward support I was a big supporter of Ryulong's last go at RfA, but the problems highlighted by those opposing his adminship have me a bit too worried. -- Kicking222 12:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
5. True neutral — Ryulong is a great vandalfighter (and we always need those) and has an astonishing edit count. But unfortunately, I share the concerns of the many people above that his standards for judging edits for being vandalism or not are truly draconian. You must really embrace WP:AGF and WP:BITE and start giving people warnings before jumping to "vandalism-only account" conclusions. I wish you all the best of luck. Misza13 15:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral His dedication to this project is admirable, but the aggressive nature of warning some of the less serious vandals is a concern to me. It is a bit draconian. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral - Never heard of this user. Zeldatime (20:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC))

   That's probably because you registered yesterday.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

8. Neutral I did think he was already an admin - a valiant vandal-fighter whom I would hate to oppose but can't support as yet. I'd say re-apply in Feb-March '07 with marked improvement in conduct/attitude. Rama's arrow 21:39, 30 October 2006 (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.