Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:37, 4 August 2006

Ryulong

Voice your opinion! (33/15/4) Ending 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 Misplaced Pages. Ryulong has also made many valuable contributions to pages in: Category:City of Heroes, Category:Xiaolin Showdown, Category:Power Rangers, and Misplaced Pages: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 19:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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:Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages email account is not activated. Why? Will you activate so that users can contact you regarding admins issues? FloNight 13:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

I have now enabled e-mail from other users. 20:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

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

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 Misplaced Pages namespace:
Article: 51.7% (2585) | Article talk: 8.4% (420)
User: 3.82% (191) | User talk: 24.8% (1240)
Misplaced Pages: 7.04% (352) | Misplaced Pages 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)

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

• Comment: I have recently commented on Emory's talk page explaining myself, and I have realized that I made that reversion due to edits made by the IP editor on the talk page, and I checked his edits in the article and I did not pay attention to the time frame. His edits at the talk page were originally reverted by Misza13 due to the sheer size and the alterations of what may be others' comments (several of the comments were not signed, and the IP editor had not made any edits on the page prior), and when he editted, again, I reverted the edits after Misza13's reversion because it was another large edit as well as removals of others comments. This is why I editted the main article and listed it as vandalism. Each time that I have falsely reverted someone, I have calmly apologized to them, and that can be seen in my archives. With the IP editor, I had no means to apologize, as as soon as he found the reversion, he proceeded to personally attack me on my user talk page, accusing me of vandalism, when the entire issue was a content dispute that elevated into a personal attack war on which I did not retaliate. The only comment I made to him after my original warning was an {{npa4}} warning after the capslock tirade. Ryūlóng 05:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. digital_me 20:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC) — as nominator.
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)
3. Support Looks great to me. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 20:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Impressive numbers! Gladly support. --Tuspm 20:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Support (2x edit conflict) – will not abuse the tools. See my standards. — FireFox _{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)

   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 . I will wait to see how this RFA plays out. Themindset 22:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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)
8. Strong Support per my experiences with the user. G.He 20:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Support Rama's arrow 21:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
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 hoopydink 21:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Support per nom. Couldnt find anything I'd disagree with. Contributes pretty much everywhere. SynergeticMaggot 21:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
13. Support per nom. --Shane 21:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
15. Support per nom and consistent with my standards. Joe 22:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
17. Weak support 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. Misplaced Pages 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)
18. Strong support - great vandal fighter and a dedicated editor abakharev 00:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Does this user ever sleep???? Crazynas 01:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    True Wikiholics don't sleep. ;) --Andeh 12:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

20. Support. Maybe he can sleep when he becomes an admin...I hope. Excellent user. alphaChimp 01:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Support, good vandal fighter, editor, will make a good admin. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 02:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
22. 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. --Siva1979 03:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
23. 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)
24. Support I have seen this user's diligence and hard work and support this nomination. MichaelZ526 04:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Support Good user; admin powers will be in good hands Brian | (Talk) 05:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Support He deserves to be an admin. dedicates himself to hard work on Misplaced Pages for becoming admin. *~Daniel~* ☎ 06:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
27. Support, reasons under oppose don't make me think the user will be a bad admin.--Andeh 09:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
28. I doubt he'd abuse the tools, Highway 09:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Support, meets my requirements, and everyone makes mistakes. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Support take the mop :P —Minun 11:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
31. Support. Deb 11:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
32. Support ticks all my boxes! A solid user. Thε Halo 15:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
33. Support per nom! —Khoikhoi 20:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose active vandal fighter but too new in my opinion was worriesome, as he never did vandalism, instead he was blocked for 3rr content dispute. I don't see any vandalism from edits like nither. I'll support in 3 months. Jaranda 21:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   Too new? Your points are valid, but he has been here six months. — FireFox _{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)

   I mean too new as not experinced enough yet. Those edits are from 2 days ago. Jaranda 21:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   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)

   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)

   The edits he's refering to are above. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages? 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). Ted/_{Contributions} 01:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose I'm going to have to oppose given the all-too-recent Emory U incident. AdamBiswanger1 03:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose per the Emery U diff. Kimchi.sg 03:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
7. Oppose Per above. --Masssiveego 05:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
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: , 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, 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)

   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)

9. Sorry must Oppose per these diffs , and other points made by Ted and Kevin_b_er. The diff. shows that the nom is not well acclimated to Misplaced Pages culture and does not fully understand how to implement policies and guidelines. Also the nom does not have their Misplaced Pages email activated. FloNight 12:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose as per TedE and the Emory University diff. Too recent an incident. Sorry. --T. Moitie 12:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
12. Oppose based on various oppose diffs. Lapinmies 13:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
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. Viridae 14:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
15. Strong oppose per apparent lack of knowledge of basic rules. MonsterOfTheLake 17:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    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)

    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)

    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)

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)

Neutral

Strong neutral The above-referenced incident () 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

1. Neutral Great vandalfighter. We're frequently on IRC at the same time and his dedication to keeping vandalism off of Misplaced Pages is strong. My only concern is that I've witnessed him being both uncivil and uncool during intense bouts of vandalism against him ( 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
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)}
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)