Ryulong might be going to arbitration Options

[Milton Roe]

So, who wants to ask Raul if he'll finally admit that promoting Ryulong with <70% support was a total, utter, blatant error in judgment that has caused precisely the sort of abuse and drama those who opposed Ryulong's sysop candidacy warned about?

I was thinking that.

I propose Raul goes next.

[Milton Roe]

If Wikipedia is due to recreate all the history of human progress in government, where do you put them about now? I'd say England about … 1640. No revolution yet, and not attempt of Jimbo and the WMF to take it all back and be Lord Protector and Commonwealth. Sigh. A lot of good stuff still to go!

Speaking of enthymemes, you make the highly questionable assumption that Wikipediot ontogeny is recapitulating, not decapitulating phylogeny.

Jon

Indeed. Without some method to avoid ballot box stuffing (some way to have user identity verification), WP may be stuck in a governmental-development dead end. Because it can't ever get to any level of end-user participatory democracy. It will be forever stuck at the 2-class Noble/Lord vs. peasant/serf model. with the latter being the non-voting class because there's just no way to figure out how to let them vote. Any fair system, and they'll immediately outvote the upper classes, and we can't have THAT.

I guess we all know who owns the estates and haciendas, eh?

I was just thinking-- do you suppose Jimbo is still entitled to droit de seigneur when it comes to executive directors and COOs and such?

[Snowey]

Now presenting Best of Requests for Adminship/Ryulong, alternatively titled, I Believe, Based On My Interactions With Him, That He Would Make a Good Sysop, And It Would Be A Mistake Not To Promote Him: A Historical Perspective

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...minship/Ryulong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...nship/Ryulong_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...nship/Ryulong_3

[Oppose] 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).

[Oppose] 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.

[Oppose] 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.

[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 tools.

[Oppose] I get the impression that Ryulong's trigger finger is still too twitchy 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.

[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).

[Oppose] He has a propensity to engage in edit wars with both new and established users and often over issues that seem bizarre.

[Oppose] Frequently posts cases on AIV that should not be blocked; I can only assume that as an admin, he would block them.

[Oppose] Sorry, but few hours ago he went into a contriversial article and re-inserted a wrong quote that is currently being disputed by many users on the talk page. 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. I'm afraid that as an admin he may abuse his powers to push his POV into articles.

[Oppose] 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.

[Oppose] 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.

[Oppose] "Imagine how much faster stopping those users would be if we a Ryulong with a sysop flag" - that's exactly my fear. I also still see use of speed-reverting tools in content disputes, which even automatically label the reverted, non-vandalistic edit as "vandalism" indelibly in the edit summary (rollback at least uses the neutral "Reverted edits by"). Needs to be more concerned with judgement and less with speed to be trusted with the admin tools.

[Oppose] There have simply been too many red (or reddish) flags raised for me to feel comfortable on this one. I also think that if one has failed a second RfA, more than two and a half months is necessary to demonstrate that the concerns raised have been dealt with and that a real change has taken place. Many commentators are concerned that the nominee may not exercise that patience before using the buttons, and rushing to another RfA doesn't dispel those concerns.

[Oppose] Adminship is no big deal, it's just two buttons on the top and Specials: being active. But there is an extra level of responsibility and accountability that go with it that require the utmost courtesy and civility in dealing with problems that come up and an administrator cannot afford impoliteness and brusqueness. Sure, we all have tempers and say things we shouldn't, but as a historical thinker I cannot ignore patterns. I intentionally abstained from the previous 2 RfAs, but I cannot this time.

[Oppose] I see too much evidence that suggests the oppose votes here and in previous RfAs have not been taken onboard. I feel blocking powers will be used too readily as a result of bad faith assumptions. The likely cost in extra unblock reviews and loss of newbies through biting is simply too high.

[Oppose] ... this is more that his impatience with vandals, which seems to engender a type of zeal for blocking people. This may spill over into some borderline and wobbly-based blocks on good faith and established editors when things get a bit tense, and usually cause more drama.

[Oppose] I feel that his knee-jerk reactions, incidents of biting newbies, and sometimes flagrant assumptions of bad faith are something that, on net, probably would lead to more harm to the project than good. I'm sorry Ryu. It's hard to oppose people you respect greatly. However, I just don't think you can be trusted with the block button.

[Support] I wish I could !vote for the candidate with fewer reservations, and I hope I don't come to regret this, but ... support. Newyorkbrad 00:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[EricBarbour]

I propose Raul goes next.

[georgeieboy]

there are six votes to fuck ryulong now.

Ryulong desysopped

1) For misuse of his administrative tools, failure to address the community's concerns, and inappropriate off-wiki behavior, Ryulong is desysopped. He may regain his adminship either though RfA at any time, or by appeal to ArbCom no less than 6 months after the closure of the case.

Support:

1. First choice. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 9:33 am, 12 May 2009, last Tuesday (4 days ago) (UTC+1)
2. First choice. It came down to this. Wizardman 9:17 pm, 12 May 2009, last Tuesday (4 days ago) (UTC+1)
3. First choice, regrettably. Casliber (talk · contribs) 9:57 pm, 12 May 2009, last Tuesday (4 days ago) (UTC+1)
4. First choice. Assuming this includes the rollback button since users can have it but not the admin bit? — Rlevse • Talk • 1:31 am, 13 May 2009, last Wednesday (3 days ago) (UTC+1)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 1:00 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)
6. First choice. Kirill [talk] [pf] 6:36 am, Today (UTC+1)

[thekohser]

Ryulong was one of Wikipedia Review's biggest opponents. If he loses the admin mop, maybe there is some hope for a return of Wikipedia Review to the WP "community". I gotta get working on that appeal hearing again.

[No one of consequence]

So, who wants to ask Raul if he'll finally admit that promoting Ryulong with <70% support was a total, utter, blatant error in judgment that has caused precisely the sort of abuse and drama those who opposed Ryulong's sysop candidacy warned about?

Eh. Worse admins have been promoted with higher scores. I have believed for a long time that it should be easier to become an admin and easier to have it removed for cause.

[Alex]

It has long been my belief that the result of someone's RFA rarely resembles their ability as an admin. I have also long believed adminship is not really about trust, rather it's about whether that person would make Wikipedia better as an admin. The articles are what matter most, not people's petty standards or personal beef with other editors.

[No one of consequence]

I have also long believed adminship is not really about trust, rather it's about whether that person would make Wikipedia better as an admin. The articles are what matter most, not people's petty standards or personal beef with other editors.

True story: This spring I started contributing to a forum for (US) income tax questions, run by one of the tax software companies. (Probably they're using web 2.0 to get volunteers to answer questions so they don't have to hire so many paid staff.) I was given enhanced access to the site after 3 days, just because I answered a lot of questions correctly. There was no political intrigue among the volunteers, just the desire to give good answers to people with problems (some of whom should not be allowed near sharp objects, much less the right to vote, but I digress). And the people asking the questions were mostly thankful. And when the SuperUsers goofed and gave wrong answers we corrected each other with professional courtesy. And no one complained about ethnic, religious, or cultural cabals trying to influence the answers. And at the end they sent me a 140 GB external hard drive as a thank you. I know where I'll be between Jan and April next year, and it doesn't begin with the letter "W".

This post has been edited by No one of consequence: Fri 15th May 2009, 3:01pm

[thekohser]

...adminship is not really about trust, rather it's about whether that person would make Wikipedia better as an admin. The articles are what matter most, not people's petty standards or personal beef with other editors.

What planet are you living on, Alex? You must be blind.

[dogbiscuit]

I have also long believed adminship is not really about trust, rather it's about whether that person would make Wikipedia better as an admin. The articles are what matter most, not people's petty standards or personal beef with other editors.

True story: This spring I started contributing to a forum for (US) income tax questions, run by one of the tax software companies. (Probably they're using web 2.0 to get volunteers to answer questions so they don't have to hire so many paid staff.) I was given enhanced access to the site after 3 days, just because I answered a lot of questions correctly. There was no political intrigue among the volunteers, just the desire to give good answers to people with problems (some of whom should not be allowed near sharp objects, much less the right to vote, but I digress). And the people asking the questions were mostly thankful. And when the SuperUsers goofed and gave wrong answers we corrected each other with professional courtesy. And no one complained about ethnic, religious, or cultural cabals trying to influence the answers. And at the end they sent me a 140 GB external hard drive as a thank you. I know where I'll be between Jan and April next year, and it doesn't begin with the letter "W".

When I was a Borland TeamBer, their system was quite simply that they had a professional in charge but other admins kept an eye and if someone made a positive contribution they would eventually get nominated. You essentially did the role anyhow and got the badge a bit later. Because we represented Borland, we watched what we said, and if someone did step out of line, they were thrown off.

The most notable occasion was when the Borland supervisor asked an old hand for the password to his sponsored account (a Borland/CompuServe property). He responded with the immortal phrase "Go sit on a fruitcake, asshole"... and with one bound he was gone.

I still have the T-Shirt with logos GSOAFA, and "I'll do anything as long as you don't pay me." (which reflected one of those big dilemma debates on the volunteer work ethics).

The whole community dysfunction thing bemuses me. There you have WMF going on about wanting people to preach of its wonders, yet they could make things better by injecting professional management, without compromising either their 230 status or undermining the community ethic. It's not like it hasn't been done successfully a thousand times before elsewhere.

[Friday]

Hopefully, cases like this will get the RFA voters to realize that when you have real reservations, you should not support. I don't think anything good has ever come from promoting someone over substantial objections. Are there any cases of people promoted with serious objections where the objections did not turn out to be well-founded?

[Alex]

Hopefully, cases like this will get the RFA voters to realize that when you have real reservations, you should not support. I don't think anything good has ever come from promoting someone over substantial objections. Are there any cases of people promoted with serious objections where the objections did not turn out to be well-founded?

Depends what your definition of "serious objection" is. Differs to mine I'm sure. As I said, result of RFA does not reflect ability as an admin.

...adminship is not really about trust, rather it's about whether that person would make Wikipedia better as an admin. The articles are what matter most, not people's petty standards or personal beef with other editors.

What planet are you living on, Alex? You must be blind.

Excuse me? I believe that's what I adminship should be, not what it is. No kidding there are lots of unsuitable individuals with admin rights, but that's the RFA system for you.

[EricBarbour]

The articles are what matter most, not people's petty standards or personal beef with other editors.

How sad, that WP doesn't actually work on that basis.....

[EricBarbour]

Woo-hoo, CHL's vote makes it seven.

[Ahypori]

The case is over, with Ryulong being desysopped and Mythdon placed under restrictions.

[Alex]

The case is over, with Ryulong being desysopped and Mythdon placed under restrictions.

Yay!

[thekohser]

The case is over, with Ryulong being desysopped and Mythdon placed under restrictions.

I see that with his new-found free time, Ryulong is staying focused on the Power Rangers related Wikipedia articles, rather than discovering some other use for that non-admin time. Something like... oh, I don't know... girls?

[Obesity]

The case is over, with Ryulong being desysopped and Mythdon placed under restrictions.

This edit war amused me to a mild degree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=292118482

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=292126426

[sbrown]

rather than discovering some other use for that non-admin time. Something like... oh, I don't know... girls?

Isnt this a bit cruel and sarcastic? Not to say he doesnt deserve it, mind!