Ryulong might be going to arbitration Options

[LamontStormstar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...tration#Ryulong

Ryulong might be going to arbitration

[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)