Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryulong 3: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:06, 19 January 2007

Ryulong

Voice your opinion (80/35/7); Scheduled to end 06:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong (talk · contribs) – Ladies and Gentlemen, I offer you Ryulong. Ryulong has over 40,000 edits, of which, 20,000 are in the mainspace. Ryulong, would make the perfect sysop, and not for these reasoning of edits alone! Ryulong has had (2) prior RfA's, the latest of which he withdrew himself to fix issues which had come up so that he could assure the community he would be a better sysop ( 1 , 2 ). Of which he has made the better of, and improved vastly upon. He has assisted users, while still remaining a stern threat against vandals. ( 1 , 2 ). There is not a day where he is not requesting an admin assist him with a CSD, Vandal, or other issue which requires a mop. Ryulong, has also contributed greatly to Super Sentai,City of Heroes, and getting {{okina}} visible for IE users. All of the listed contributions are just a VERY small sample of the countless contributions he has made. I would trust Ryulong with the sysop tools, and for the above reasons you should too! Somitho 06:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination from MichaelBillington (talk · contribs): Ryulong is one of the most active users on Wikipedia. Since he joined almost a year ago (6 Feb 2006), he has clocked up a monumental 40,200 edits, all well spread across the different namespaces. He is a very active vandal fighter, having reverted countless instances of non-constructive edits, and warned accordingly. To give you an idea of how much Wikipedia could benefit from Ryulong having the sysop flag, he has over 3,000 edits to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism - imagine how much faster stopping those users would be if we a Ryulong with a sysop flag. (He has managed to create a backlog on that page several times) He doesn't just revert vandalism either, he has also been active in writing & cleaning up articles in areas such as Pokémon and Power Rangers, among others. He previously withdrew an RfA back in October of '06, and failed one in August of the same year. I believe Ryulong has the experience needed to carry out administrative duties, and that Wikipedia will benefit greatly from him being a sysop. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 06:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-co-nomination from Keitei

In addition to a browser-crashing edit count, Ryulong is familiar with policy and practice. He is active in article editing as well as fighting vandalism. He has recently begun Wikipedia:WikiProject Tokusatsu, generated a mascot with a free license (experience with freeing images +++), and cleaned up several related articles. I hear he is very active on WP:AIV and he spams IRC all the time with admin requests. He is helpful with newcomers and leeching oldtimers alike and is courteous with every request. I have always known him to be not just civil, but respectful of even the maddest contributors. Giving him +sysop would not only make a lot of sysops' lives easier, but would be a benefit to all of Wikipedia as well. Besides, anyone who likes Totally Spies is alright with me. --Keitei (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ryulong 2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk • contribs) 10:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My statement on prior requests: Of the many points brought up in my past requests for adminship, was my tendency to bite new users while on recent changes patrolling. I have been curtailing this aspect of my Wikipedia edits by working on articles and assuming good faith for some newbie or IP edits. I have also (occasionally) helped out on the Wikipedia IRC help channel (#wikipedia-bootcamp) by responding to requests at {{helpme}} or to users who show up in the channel, a channel I may continue to frequent.
Another issue that is brought up is my zealousness to dealing with some editors, particularly when I deal with either malformed, vandalous, or incomplete requests in CAT:RFU. If I see "WTF? I'm not blocked!" and there's no block log, I tell the user to utilize the autoblock template. If I see a blank one, I <nowiki> it and help the user complete it. If I see, "[Insert admin] is a [insert profanity]" I revert and/or decline it, all of which I do to help the project.

Statement on this nom: Some people have been stating that I am requesting adminship again because I want the extra buttons and will use them abusively. This is entirely false. Somitho (who goes by Soms on IRC) suddenly privately messaged me and told me that he was going to put me up for RFA this time. I at first did not want to accept, but after going back on some of my more recent contributions in trying to improve the project, including speedy deletions, vandal blocks, etc.

Statement about the previous nom: I withdrew my last RFA not only because it was gaining so much opposition in less than a 24 hour span, but I was not ready at that time emotionally due to my housing situation at school (if you want the full details, you can contact me privately) as well as various other issues that are still being brought up here.

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 continue assisting in dealing with the various levels of vandalism that have been hitting Wikipedia as of late, which has primarily been dealing with sockpuppets of banned users as well as the shock image vandalism (which has somewhat been made moot with the new cascading protection). I was even subject to an emergency sysopping at the Commons due to the use there to vandalize Wikipedia. I will also assist in the various XfD logs and constant backlogs such as CAT:CSD, CAT:RFU, and the (recent [to the best of my knowledge]) massive backlogs of images that lack a source, licensing, fair use rationale, orphaned, etc.

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

A: I am particularly pleased with my work to keep two of the newest articles I work with, Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive and Juuken Sentai Gekiranger both free of unsourced speculation and filled with references, be it to images, actors' blogs, actors' profiles at talent agencies, etc., so that some day, these articles could be considered good, or even featured. As Somitho and Keitei state, I have been primarily working with the Super Sentai, City of Heroes, and Tokusatsu so that they are also improved from their prior states. Also stated by Somitho, I was the individual who helped make Template:Okina visible on those who use Internet Explorer, which is currently being used on the main page for the Selected Anniversary on Queen Liliʻuokalani. I have also been expanding 30 Sentai Encyclopedia to a great degree with various other editors as to keep track of the clip show that commemorates Super Sentai. In this process I try to understand what is going on in the Japanese clips, try to get as much of the original Japanese to incorporate as text in the article, and figure out what song is playing in the background (a part of the article added by another editor that I have continued to work on).

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have been in some conflicts over editing in the past. When this usually happens, I distance myself from the project, and just surf the internet or chat with friends. This is how I would continue to deal with such stresses that come from being entrenched in a certain part of the project.

Optional question from User:Renesis13

4. If we pretend that we still do not know the final outcome of the User:Tennis expert case, how do you feel about the appropriateness of this CSD tag which you placed on an article created by User:Tennis expert?

A: At the time, that is all I knew about the situation, seeing that another Cute 1 4 u sock discovery thread had been placed on WP:AN(/I). I went through Tennis expert's contributions, found said page, and nominated it for speedy deletion as G4 known solely at that time. The article, surely with a lot of work put into, does still appear to me to be a bit esoteric, but this is from someone who edits articles on Japanese children's television shows. Barring the removal of the tag, I would have prodded it for being an indiscriminate collection of information that could likely be better put into a bit of prose, from what I know having to write up lab reports, in which we are instructed to use words to explain information that is in a table form.

Optional question from User:Newyorkbrad

5. One of the biggest concerns raised by the opposers of this and your last RfA is that you sometimes report users to AIV without prior warning or with insufficient warning, and therefore there is concern that as an administrator you would give out premature blocks. Under what circumstances do you believe that a user should be blocked immediately, without prior warning? Under what circumstances do you believe that a user should be blocked after only a single warning? And, are there situations in which an admin should consult with other admins (e.g. on ANI) before blocking?

A: I feel that an immediate block should be performed only in severe situations, such as certain banned users overstaying his or her welcome or on other such accounts that are being used to solely disrupt the community and the project, such as accounts with disruptive usernames.
When I have reported to AIV without warning or with a single warning, I usually do so because I see egregious vandalism (there was one recently where a user had replaced text on several pages with ASCII art of a penis, but I cannot remember the name to cite a specific diff). One can only assume good faith so much when there is evidence to the contrary (and assuming good faith should not be the same as assuming blind faith), and AIV is often the fastest way to get a response on simple issues that could probably require a mention at the noticeboard, particularly due to the recent mass disruption.
I feel that there are situations in which an admin should consult other admins before blocking, such as imposing a block on an account in good standing because of a recent spate of unrelenting disruptive behavior (although at this point, such a block would more than likely be punitive and that should never be an option).05:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

General comments

See Ryulong's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Discussion

Support

Nom Support I of course support the RfA Somitho 07:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go go gadget support! --Keitei (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Michael Billington's reasoning as co-nominator >_> Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 07:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First non-nom support! Definitely, the noms have stated my case. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 07:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. Excellent vandal-fighter, and he makes considerable effort to clean up articles that need it. A true asset to Wikipedia. jgp ^T_C 07:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, seems kinda soon since the last one, but marked improvements. – Ch acor 07:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to oppose. – Ch acor 12:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. Flyingtoaster1337 07:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support has my trust. An excellent contributor who will make an excellent admin. Gwernol 07:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support an outstanding candidate with experiance with clear vision and need for admin tools in the fight against vandalism. --Matthew 08:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - not going by edits, but will definitely make a good admin because of his/her vandal fighting. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 08:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per nom. Valued contributor, excellent person, will use the tools wisely and efficently. — Editor at Large ^(speak) 08:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - you can be the first to have my new signature on an RfA. --Kind Regards -Heligo land 08:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although the user has too many edits :-) Kusma (討論) 08:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT!" This guy is gooooood. --CableModem^_^ 09:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not enough edits Changing to Support ;) --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 09:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support- I will overlook your very low edit count. Jorcoga Yell! 09:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rarely has a mop been earned through so much janitorial work. Anyone who can make 40,000 edits without getting banned is doing something right. -Will Beback · † · 09:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT! Ryu for president! w00t w00t!. rxKaffee 09:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Will. yandman 09:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Loooong overdue Experienced, trustworthy, dedicated. What more do we need? Mop please! --Dweller 09:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT Based On Refferal of Soms, High Barnstar And Edit Count! ChrisBradley 09:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on my personal experience with him, which has been quite positive. He already acts functionally as an admin in many ways, and I trust his judgment will remain as precise once he is formally granted the tools as it is now. --tjstrf talk 09:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I wish you to show that concerns raised in the previous RFAs do not apply to you. Conscious 09:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was initially hesitant about giving my input into this RfA, however I recognise the importance of giving people second-chances when they make mistakes, and giving +sysop to users where Wikipedia will benefit from said action. Hence, I strongly support this RfA and encourage other !voters to not look at the issues brought up at Ryu's last RfA, but rather the improvements Ryu has made in his character and editing. It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities; Ryulong may be slightly snappish on the odd occasion, but has shown over the last two months or so that he has the tempermant also to ensure that any bitey incidents are avoided to the best of his ability. That is enough for me, and I hope it will be for others. Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, and I appeal to all those who may be considering opposing Ryulong for actions prior to his last RfA withhold their opposal, and rather evaulate the substantial changes he has made in his personality, conversing style and general editing practices. He who cannot forgive breaks the bridge over which he himself must pass. Think of the benefits to Wikipedia, in conjunction with Ryulong's improvement, and not any percieved opposal based on occasional misdeeds an age (in Wikitime) ago. We all make mistakes - even the best of us, and I could reference one highly-regarded user whom basically everyone on Wikipedia respects (and no, not Jimbo) - but a blanket statement will suffice, and this blanket statement includes this nomination. Good luck Ryulong. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, that statement greatly concerns me. This has nothing to do with grudges and second chances and I don't know why you think otherwise. This is purely about the suitability of the candidate for Adminship. Your statement that we should "not look at the issues brought up at Ryu's last RfA" is, frankly, bizarre. There were genuine concerns raised at the last RfA which was only two months ago. The same issues were raised at Ryulong's first RfA. They weren't resolved by his second and I think it is completely valid to consider whether they have been resolved by his third. If they haven't been, we wouldn't be doing him any favours by giving him the admin bit. Sarah 16:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grudges was probably a bad word...presumtions is more like it. What I mean is don't simply consider the face-value of the opposes in the first and second (because there were some very valid opposes brought up), bur rather judge the improvement, or lack thereof if you believe so, since the second RfA. It appears we misunderstood each other, probably through poor selection of words on my part. The second-last sentence by you - it is completely valid to consider whether they have been resolved by his third - was the point of my little bit of prose; don't judge him on long-ago mistakes (ie. before RfA II), but rather what has happened since. I suspect some people had made up their minds in RfA's I and II to oppose Ryulong no matter what for his indiscretions since before RfA II, and this is totally the wrong attitude, and what I want to discourage. Again, sorry for the misunderstanding. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This could have been stronger, but meh. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lame not enough edits joke — Werdna talk 10:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great experience working with the editor, and although a bit over-zealous sometimes, theres nothing holding me back from support. — Floria L 10:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I've seen him around in a lot of domains, and he comes across as a very determined, hardworking but fair editor, who could make great use of the admin tools (especially vandal fighting). Fram 10:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This should've came earlier, but there was an edit conflict. Very Large Shivan Support aka. Ultra-Extreme Support; oh yes, he's been very helpful indeed. When Torchic was the Featured Article of the Day, he was almost always the first to respond to vandalism...like how AntiVandalBot would've responded if it wasn't a scripted bot. He's very helpful, civil and follows Wikipedia rules. As I write this comment, I'm checking his Contributions; it is very unnerving to see how many reverts and edits he can make within the space of a minute. Keep this up, good sir! Surely you deserve the mop! You've certainly got the Wikipediholism for it. -- Alt iris Exeunt 11:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support fine editor who is always up for helping other people RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks like he is going to be a great admin and a helpful new member in the admin forces. I'm impressed with his diligence and help in AIV. Changed to Neutral ← ANAS ^Talk? 12:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Terence Ong 12:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominators. S .D. ¿п? § 12:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - one of those genuine "thought they were already" ones --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It would take a load off WP:AIV. Agathoclea 14:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cylonhunter (talk • contribs)
User's 17th edit, second edit to an RFA. – Ch acor 14:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has tons of experience, has proven himself to be dedicated, and seems to know what he wants to do with the tools he will soon be givin. Great work. Gan fon 15:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I opposed the last RfA based on his sometimes-inaccurate reports to AIV. I still don't feel totally comfortable with some reports (UsernameBlocked, for example), but I am letting his other activities overshadow this issue. Nishkid 64 15:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, yes a million times over. Ryulong is an enormous asset to the project. I wish I had the discipline to do half the amount of work he does. --Slowking Man 15:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - looking through contributions, I see multiple instances of javascript reversions of things other than simple vandalism. Even if it takes a bit longer, it's a good idea to use edit summaries for anything other than simple vandalism. Engaging someone who is potentially acting in good faith is usually a good idea. Still, though, Ryulong is an amazing editor who contributes to administrative tasks and has an obvious use for the tools. Thus, I support. --BigDT 16:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - heart's in the right place, but watch the newbie biting. ++Lar: t/c 16:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But please be careful — we don't need any overzealous blocks, especially when it comes to new usernames. --Cyde Weys 16:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 18:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks good. Rama's arrow (3:16) 18:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly because then he can do his own blocks and stop bugging me--Doc^g 18:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Ryulong incredibly active fighting vandals on and off wiki. I see no good reason to again deny him this promotion. alphachimp 19:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a quiet observer of good work and two co-nom's can't be all bad. So we've all made mistakes, no-one's perfect. Could always consider being open to recall if it would appease some other opinions? The Rambling Man 19:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This was an easy support, he will use the tools, I trust him not to abuse them on purpose. A few mistakes out of 40,000 edits, so what? We are are all human. :P Ryulong has at least 2 times as many edits as I do, I think he has demonstrated his good faith, and lack of malice towards wikipedia. Also, lets not forget these famous words... "Adminship is not a big deal". —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 20:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kari Hazzard (T | C) 20:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per noms. Yuser31415 21:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
dvd rw 21:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per noms, AIV will take a load off. VegaDark 21:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support An outstanding, experienced user with very good knowledge of WP's policies.--Húsönd 22:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - this user does have some small issues with talk page removal (which I've mentioned to him), and some occasional bite issues. But for gosh sake, no admin candidate will be absolutely perfect, and I'm sure he's learned from the past, and will certainly not try to abuse the tools. Patstuart^talk|edits 22:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. SynergeticMaggot 22:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom kaiti-sicle 23:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Excellent edit count with slight problems but "nobody's perfect"! --The preceding comment was signed by Us e r:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 23:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish Support I was very neutral, very on-the-fence, very undecided in the last RfA, but there seems to be some real attempts at correcting the errors brought up at that point. I would have liked to see even more improvement, but I can trust this user with the admin tools at this point. AuburnPilot^talk 23:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support He'll be a good admin. FrancoGG ^{( talk )} 23:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - he's ready now. Khoikhoi 23:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Support Although he is far from the perfect Wikipedian (he has a sort of Jack Bauer style of dealing with vandalism, which, although effective, is really in violation of WP:BITE), Ryulong has done an incredible job with fighting vandalism. His job would be easier if he had admin tools. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Besids a rediculous number of edits, he's an asset to vandalfighting. Loses his cool on occasion, but also helps out when needed. I'm willing to look over the once in a while problems because his pluses are far greater.--Wizardman 01:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think you can really question Ryulong's good faith and dedication to the project, which are the most important things for me in making a decision at RfA. Certainly some valid concerns have been raised, but beyond lack of rolling out the red carpet for vandals with 4 warnings (which is not an entitlement, contrary to popular belief), I don't see that much to worry about. He's made 40,000+ edits and I'm sure any non-robot would have made a few mistakes, rubbed a few people the wrong way in that time. I see nothing that really makes me think he'd hurt the project as an admin. --W.marsh 02:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, if it's obscene vandalism, I just bv them, and other people normally get two...and sometimes three if it was "soft", but I think one is necessary. I don't think anybody is saying he's not acting in good faith, there's nothing wrong about increasing productivity with a few mistakes in the way - we can always undelete etc, and we can unblock if wrong input is put into the block, such as a misdirected block, but 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. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point... but I don't believe that being quick to block vandals means someone will make bad blocks of non-vandals. Maybe there's a correlation maybe not, but it just strikes me as an unfair analogy to make. Anyway as you well know we have a proven method of dealing with admins whose blocks do become problematic, I am just saying that I would give Ryulong a chance here. Greanted I am not on Arbcom and do not have to deal with the fallout if there is anything (which I do not expect, obviously). --W.marsh 03:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above comments. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 03:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support He's well fit for the tools.--KonstableSock 03:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support He'll make a great admin. --Tohru Honda13^{Talk•Sign here} 03:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Michael 03:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Turnip Georgewilliamherbert 07:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Long overdue. --Calton | Talk 08:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. — CharlotteWebb 08:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Having an impersonator on several wikipedias (cf. Bobabobabo) means he's cool enough to troll. ~Crazytales (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support WP needs more admins, and he'll be fine. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Diligent and capable. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I understand (and to an extent share) opposers' concerns. I hope Ryulong will draw his own conclusions (and learn from them). Still, I think he's ripe, and his dedication is definitely an asset to the project. Duja► 21:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Been looking at this for a couple of days now. There is no doubt Ryulong is an excellent vandal fighter. In every instance that I noticed, Ryulong posted AIV IP's and editors who definitely needed to be blocked. I prefer to see more mainspace contributions, but I'm not going to fault you for that or for a few minor situations (out of 40,000!) in which you may have not been 100% correct. It's a law of averages, the more one does, the more chance they have of making a rare mistake, and no one should ever expect that an admin will be perfect (though we strive for that of course).--MONGO 22:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent vandal-fighter, trustworthy, good enough to have the occasional biting (which has improved) overlooked. With 40,000 edits, some amount of mistakes were inevitable. Quendus 22:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: with the understanding that a mop isn't just a stick with a fuzzy end. Ryulong knows what it's like to be an editor in need of an admin action, and I believe that he won't forget his non-sysop roots for those that need help. In my opinion, Ryulong shows that he can think like an admin, even though he does commit sporadic mistakes (which will hopefully abate), so one last thing: may angry vandal mastadons not let him lose appreciation of how latently important new users are. Gracenotes^T § 23:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: So he'll stop bugging the rest of us. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 02:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nothing major against that a normal admin doesn't go through in dealing with other people. Ryulong would make a fine additional admin. --MECU≈talk 03:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support sure, Ryulong would be an asset in weeding out vandalism. I think he's earned our trust, and I trust he won't be too block heavy to start -- Samir धर्म 03:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per his work on helping counter the MascotGuy vandal. Although MascotGuy indeed makes good faith edits, it's impossible to communicate with him which makes him a problem. Very few admins only see WP:AGF and refuse to clean up after him or block his sockpuppets, and Ryulong will make a welcome addition. Also, it is quite obvious from this and previous nominations that he communicates with other admins. Tuxide 03:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose with regret A fine editor, but ofte nnot emollient enough to be a successful admin.--Brownlee 10:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Three words - what the hell? – Ch acor 10:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He thinks Ryulong doesn't calm other editors down enough (not that Ryulong himself isn't calm enough). yandman 10:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erhm, you're opposing him for not being made of vaseline? Or is this a figurative oppose, claiming that he resembles nitroglycerin more than glycerine itself? If so, I don't think that's his fault so much as the fault of the users he plays opposition to. I've never seen him be incivil to anyone who wasn't a blatant troll. --tjstrf talk 10:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish Oppose I just have concerns over judgement. For example, removing User:Tennis expert unblock request (diff) after Tennis expert was erroneously labelled a sock-puppet. Denying unblock requests is a task that should be reserved to admins. There is no evidence of Ryulong discussing this matter on-wiki before he removed Tennis expert's request. Ryulong also tried to delete articles that Tennis expert had worked on (diff) because he was a "banned user". Catchpole 12:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify here, that was a CheckUser block. Per the block logs, admins are NOT to unblock those users, they are to notify the blocking CheckUser and let them handle it. The CU (dmcdevitt) had already been notified, so Ryulong denied the unblock request so that it wouldn't keep coming up in CAT:UNBLOCK, since there was nothing an administrator could do. Just wanted to clear that up for anyone not understanding the context. —bbatsell ¿? 15:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Comment: I am going to study this RfA further before !voting, but with respect to the specific issue concerning User:Tennis expert, I followed that dispute at the time and it is important to bear in mind that Ryulong was relying on a report from a Checkuser that Tennis expert had been confirmed by the checkuser IP evidence to be another in a long series of accounts associated with a particularly problematic banned user. I do not think that a non-checkuser editor should be unduly criticized for relying on the reported checkuser findings. In this instance, the behavioral evidence reflected such a degree of dissimilarity between Tennis expert's contributions and those of the alleged primary account that the Checkuser reviewed his findings, consulted with another Checkuser, and the checkuser finding was overturned. The admins who pushed for a review of the checkuser result, particularly User:Renesis, are to be commended for their open-mindedness and perseverence in this situation. But this was an atypical and extraordinary situation - in fact I cannot think of any other time that this has ever happened - and while apologies were owed to Tennis expert, I don't think Ryulong should be opposed for adminship on this basis. Newyorkbrad 15:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ oppose, changed from weak support, per Catchpole. I agree that Ryulong did not make good judgements regarding Tennis expert, and that was concerning - and not even making an effort to listen to those who argued that Tennis expert couldn't possibly be C14u? Hmm... gives me second thoughts. – Ch acor 12:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firm oppose. Ryulong, would you please care to explain this? Very uncharacteristically effectively gaming the system regarding 3RR. – Ch acor 12:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if I'm just being unbelievably dense and can't see it, but what did Ryulong do incorrectly there? All he did was confirm a 3RR report. --BigDT 13:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me quote the relevant statements:
Completely inappropriate behaviour by Ryulong, as well – [1], [2], [3], using scripts to revert other users. Use the anti-vandalism tool only for the job they are authorised for. Your actions potray that you were trying to induce the other users into breaching WP:3RR and getting blocked. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
– Ch acor 14:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't induce somebody into violating 3RR. Others, including three administrators, also reverted this individual. Ryulong shouldn't have used scripts to do it, but one admin in that thread used the rollback button and in all honesty, there wasn't that much more to be said. A copy-paste fork is not the way to undue a contested move. --BigDT 14:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All I knew about that was that the individual showed up in the recent changes channel filling that page with a lot of text. When I saw the name of the page and the content he wrote over, I reverted thinking he had performed a copy-paste move, but I did not find the other page. I know now that I should not have utilized my javascript to deal with that, but after that, I separated myself completely from that thread, and when I revisited it, it was after arbitrator Jayjg had left his comments throughout the report, after which I had contacted Nearly Headless Nick, which can be seen on his talk page, and I also spoke with him privately on IRC about my actions.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tons and tons of talk page comment removing from this user. Anomo 13:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Chacor and Anomo.--Runcorn 13:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see little familiarity with process and little edits in process space other than with an automation script. Gnoming is good but there's more to adminning than that. >Radiant< 14:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, but if this user is an exemplery vandal patroller and spends a considerable time of the day (?) reverting vandalism and making reports to WP:AIV, why not give him the tools?. Maybe he could add himself to Category:Administrators open to recall? — Nearly Headless Nick 14:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand why you're linking to Clown here, except that I recall also opposing Clown for lack of experience (and supporting on a later nom, iirc). I don't believe particularly much in requiring nominees to join AOTR, nor, for that matter, in AOTR itself. >Radiant< 14:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd really like to not see people placing requirements for membership in Category:Administrators open to recall if at all possible, please. ++Lar: t/c 16:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Radiant, do I understand you right in that you don't see enough edits by this user without a script? He has 40000 edits, and participates in the noticeboards all the time. Even if only 1/5 of this user's contributions were without the script, it would be 8000 edits. Patstuart^talk|edits 22:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't see enough edits related to process without a script. In other words I do not see evidence that Ryulong is sufficiently familiar with that. >Radiant< 17:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Radiant, please don't take this the wrong way - I'm not trying to be rude. But Ryulong has 5000 Wikispace edits, including many many AFD's, participation on AN, RFAr, and more, all of which aren't with a script. I must compared this with another user who you just nominated: User:CJLL Wright, who has hardly any Wikispace edits outside of Wikiprojects. If you can explain this discrepency, I'm all for it, but right now, I'm a little baffled by this oppose still. Thanks. Patstuart^talk|edits 04:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, especially per the diff mentioned by Chacor. Lectonar 15:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The issues raised by myself and others at his last RfA, only a couple of months ago, still concern me and I don't feel that enough time has passed for us to be sure that they've been adequately resolved. I'm rather surprised by this RfA as it seems quite fast. And the nominators' statements don't alleviate any of my concerns. To say that Ryulong "withdrew himself (from the last RfA) to fix issues which had come up so that he could assure the community he would be a better sysop" is a rather curious spin to put on an RfA that was withdrawn at 27/30/8. The second nominator states, "to give you an idea of how much Wikipedia could benefit from Ryulong having the sysop flag, he has over 3,000 edits to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism - imagine how much faster stopping those users would be if we a Ryulong with a sysop flag. (He has managed to create a backlog on that page several times)." Unfortunately, one of the concerns raised by several administrators at the previous RfA was that Ryulong creates AIV backlogs unnecesarily by listing accounts that should not be listed.I should say that the nominator's statements really don't have anything to do with my oppose, but they certainly don't alleviate my concerns. Sarah 16:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC) I just want to add that on a personal level, I genuinely and sincerely like Ryulong. Opposing RfAs of people you like is difficult and the suggestion above about opposers holding grudges because they're concerned about long term issues is invalid and inappropriate. Sarah 16:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, don't worry. It's just an RfA in the end. Whether Ryulong becomes an admin or not, he'll still be here, doing what he does best...I hope. In any case, even if this RfA fails, I believe Ryulong will eventually become an admin. With his kind of (good) edit count, that seems very possible. -- Alt iris Exeunt 09:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, with regret. I think his heart is in the right place and his intentions are good, but my experience with the vandals whom he has reported at WP:AIV leaves me dubious. There are some recent patrollers whom you learn to trust: you know that their vandals are well-warned before the report, and that there had been vandalism after a final-warning. I hated doing Ryulong's reports because steps were skipped so often and test4 or bv given so quickly and easily. I don't want to have to go back now to find diffs to substantiate (sorry), but I have big WP:BITE concerns here. Bucketsofg 16:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Sarah. From my experience I have seen Ryulong post too many odd users to the WP:AIV. Arjun 18:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - see little or no improvement since last RfA. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my concerns in the first RFA and Bucketsofg, I still don't trust him with the block tools, sorry Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Regarding the concerns that he is too trigger happy with reporting to AIV, and would presumably be the same with the block button. I didn't need to look too far to find this warning (after which the vandal stopped, having made two edits) and this AIV posting - with both the warning and the posting being made at 10:26pm. TigerShark 20:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some biting issues still IMO. Use of JS rollback-like summaries for things that are clearly not vandalism, which often leads to unnecessary discussion. For instnace, a revert on AIV [4] spawned this discussion, which could have easily been prevented had the unnecessary text just been removed along with an edit summary. I also notice tendencies to be harsher on good-faith anonymous user edits; i.e. this anon's edit was reverted with rollback [5], while a similar edit that I did [6] [7] had an edit summary (the anon did add rank names, but this should have been explained as with the preference to use redirects over real titles). Ah, and who can forget the revert of my good-faith of a cleanup template that I couldn't spell correctly? [8] Hbdragon88 21:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per answer to 4. Placing {{Template:db-banned|db-banned]]}} on Tennis performance timeline comparison (women) is a huge guilt-by-assocation misapplication of the intent of CSD G5. There is no need to go through banned user's contribs and start placing db-banned on all of the pages started by that user without consideration of the content of the page. It's easy to see that a lot of good work has gone into that page with no mal intent. I'm concerned what these philosophies mean for Ryulong as an admin candidate. -- Renesis (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose I am not the most frequent servicer of AIV, but this shows a request for a block without even a token warning. I am sure there are many other things. Combined with the candidate's very high enthusiasm to turn down or remove unblock requests when not an admin, I am not at all comfortable with Ryulong having a block button - especially if he gets into a confrontation with an established user and blocks them unilaterally on a grey area. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody is saying Ryulong is not acting in good faith, there's nothing wrong about increasing productivity with a few mistakes in the way - we can always undelete etc, and we can unblock if wrong input is put into the block, such as a misdirected block, but 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. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sarah Ewart's comments are persuasive, as are Blnguyen's, and so is a look through Ryulong's user talk contribs. I applaud Ryulong's energy, but I'm far from confident in his judgement. For reasons already mentioned in the oppose section and in the support one too, the idea of giving Ryulong a block button of his very own does not fill me with boundless enthusiasm. And while Doc Glasgow (and the other supporting admins) might have fewer blocks to make, I am concerned that there would be a lot more unblocks for them to do, and all the attendant wikidrama, if Ryulong mopped acted like Ryulong today. I have to question the wisdom of three RfAs in under a year of editing when essentially the same issues are raised in each, and nothing very much, other than Ryulong's edit count, seems to change. There's really little point in editors, including supporting ones, offering their views if the candidate simply carries on doing the same unacceptable things. Finally, "administrator status is not a trophy": there is no number of edits, however vast, which can compensate for excessive WP:BITE and the related points raised here and previously. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, per the concerns expressed by Bucketsofg and BInguyen. I have great admiration for Ryulong's hard work and service, but I have concerns about his judgement. Ryulong has an admirable work ethic, but he still lets his enthusiasm for vandal-fighting get out of hand too often. Again, an excellent editor, but needs to learn more restraint before being given the mop. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I often see him on IRC often poking admins to block this user or that user, which led me to believe he was a bit trigger happy (why wouldn't AIV suffice?). The above evidence unfortunately confirms my suspicions. I'm not comfortable giving him the block button. Gzkn 02:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You may need the tools, but I just can't support you after User:Tennis expert's incident. I mean, you told him to ask for a review by editing a page when he was blocked! You needed better judgemnt (by going to AN/I). Regardless, one's contributions should not be deleted if they are banned solely becuase of that, they still helped the project. -- Chris is me _{(u/c/t)_{02:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)}}[reply]
Oppose, per Sarah above, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryulong and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryulong 2. Too happy with the whack-a-mole button for my taste. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose over concerns with reporting too quickly to WP:AIV and WP:BITE. A couple of recent reports illustrate: [9] reported as "troll account" with no warnings and nothing I see or the removing administrator as trolling [10]. [11] reported for introducing copyvio to article without proper warnings: warned with blank2 and then reported to AIV. While true that copyvio is bad and Ryulong removed the report, it concerns me a great deal that Ryulong has a block first-type of view. I think that Ryulong is a good asset to Wikipedia, but would be very concerned if given the block button. -- Gogo Dodo 09:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regretfully Oppose. I really laud Ryulong's anti-vandalism efforts, however the diffs provided above give me the impression that he might be a bit over-enthusiastic with the block button and this may lead to, as Blnguyen's says above, "...things getting a bit tense, and usually causing more drama". --Srikeit 10:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Oppose (switched from support) per diff provided by Chacor and other concerns raised above. I can probably forgive that, but certainly not when it happened four days ago. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 11:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I opposed last time and haven't seen anything change in his attitude since, particularly in reporting people to WP:AIV that don't need blocking, something where I've been observing Ryulong's activity over a long period of time. "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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (switched from neutral) per diffs/issues raised by Chacor and Gogo Dodo, and per my previous deep-seated uneasiness about biting, which I now see wasn't just me. Proto::► 14:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sam Blanning.--Osidge 17:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sarah Ewart. There remain some valid concerns regarding candidate's judgment. Xoloz 18:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose This is one of those noms where you really have to sit back and think. While adminship really is not a big deal (really, it isn't), care still needs to be taken to ensure that any candidate is suited for the extra buttons. This nominee is a very valuable contributor; however, adminship isn't about rewarding good editors. 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. Agent 86 18:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sarah Ewart and others. Recent diffs show continued biting and a block-first reflex. ×Meegs 19:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with regret per Sarah. I really like Ryulong and believe he means well, but there are too many WP:BITE concerns in this case. I would be happy to reconsider after a few months showing a more temperate hand in dealing with alleged vandals who may just be untrained newbies. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per worries about his comments about images here, and his apparent wish to work with images as an admin. While the user he was talking about was quite off on Wikipedia policy in re. images, Ryulong's comments (including "Pictures on Wikipedia are not covered by Florida law.", as well as his beliefs about replaceable fair use. Ral315 (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of context; it was an indecent exposure law that both the user and I were referring to.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Ral315 (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per history of "cut twice, measure once" above, hoped that after 2nd RfA he'd become more of a "measure twice, cut once" type of person, but I see no evidence of that. Pete.Hurd 22:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sarah Ewart and Xoloz.--R613vlu 23:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Agent 86 expressed, this is a sit back and think situation; really what RfA is for. While I've interacted with Ryulong quite a bit and defended the user in a couple different situations where he was under attack for upholding policy, I can't support the buttons. 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. This is the toughest post I've ever made, my only other oppose was Joshbuddy. Teke^(talk) 05:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral. Something feels off, but I don't know what. Maybe something to do with all the biting and civility issues raised in the last RFA, which was only just over 2 months ago. Nowhere near enough to make me go for oppose, though. Proto::► 11:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Switched to oppose.[reply]

Neutral based on this edit war just a day ago. It seems that some of the issues of civility and biting haven't been addressed. Metros232 14:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I commented about my actions there at a thread on WP:ANI that went unnoticed. I explained there that I had done so because Linklizard72 had uploaded unsourced images that had been removed/deleted for the same reasons, and was removing an image, from reasons on the talk page by anonymous editors feel that it was too much of a spoiler, when WP:SPOILER clearly states that neutral and verifiable information should not be removed just because it is a spoiler, which the image (that I had to revert to replace/fix the formatting of as the user removed a bracket in the link) involved was connected to. Merope commented on my talk page, but it did not appear (to me) that he understood me.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Chacor... too recent an event. --Majorly 16:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Netural per Majorly. Carpet9 03:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Ryūlóng definitely has the editing experience down, it's just that Chacor and the opposing side does raise a few doubts. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Per Sharkface217's pithy reasoning. I want to support - because this guy is dedicated - but concerns over shotgun approach to anti-vandalism keeps me neutral for now. I'm a little concerned over the premature use of high-level test templates that i've seen brought to AIV, and wonder if the tools would be be used in a similar manner? I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Rockpocket 07:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral but 'support at a pinch. I'm not fond of people who are rough on newbies but on the other hand, I think warning people who act like dicks time and again is counterproductive and I deprecate the whole warning system, where a process has become an obstacle, not a help, it seems. Give them a day to think about it; if they want to contribute, they'll be itching to after that break! Yes, this requires a bit more judgement from admins, and I don't have a problem with warnings as such (just being too Byzantine about our requirements when someone is obviously here to cause strife). And I tend to favour adminning users who have contributed a fair bit even if they've occasionally gone wrong, rather than dredging up some incident that they might not be particularly proud of and using it to hang them. Grace Note 07:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral changed from support. The diffs provided and the oppose comments above by Sarah and Chacor made me regretfully change my vote. Not too comfortable knowing you might abuse the tools, but still not to the extent of opposing your RfA. Sorry. ← ANAS ^Talk? 14:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 195: / Line 195: @@
 #'''Oppose''' per Sarah Ewart and others.  Recent diffs show continued biting and a block-first reflex. '''''×'''''[[User:Meegs|Meegs]] 19:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 #'''Oppose with regret''' per Sarah. I really like Ryulong and believe he means well, but there are too many [[WP:BITE]] concerns in this case. I would be happy to reconsider after a few months showing a more temperate hand in dealing with alleged vandals who may just be untrained newbies. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkblue">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">Talk</font>]] <font color="darkblue">to</font> [[WP:JA|Nihon]][[WP:MOS-JA|<font color="darkgreen">joe</font>]]</small></sup> 21:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
-#'''Oppose''' per worries about his comments about images [[User talk:Ryulong/Archive 7#Pavel_Novotony.27s_picture|here]], and his apparent wish to work with images as an admin.  While the user he was talking about was quite off on Wikipedia policy in re. images, Ryulong's comments (including "Pictures on Wikipedia are not covered by Florida law.", as well as his beliefs about replaceable fair use.  [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] ([[User talk:Ral315|talk]]) 22:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
+#::'''Oppose''' per worries about his comments about images [[User talk:Ryulong/Archive 7#Pavel_Novotony.27s_picture|here]], and his apparent wish to work with images as an admin.  While the user he was talking about was quite off on Wikipedia policy in re. images, Ryulong's comments (including "Pictures on Wikipedia are not covered by Florida law.", as well as his beliefs about replaceable fair use.  [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] ([[User talk:Ral315|talk]]) 22:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
-#:A bit of context; it was an indecent exposure law that both the user and I were referring to.—[[User:Ryulong|<font color="blue">Ryūlóng</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryulong|<font color="orange">竜</font><font color="green">龍</font>]]) 22:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
+#:::A bit of context; it was an indecent exposure law that both the user and I were referring to.—[[User:Ryulong|<font color="blue">Ryūlóng</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryulong|<font color="orange">竜</font><font color="green">龍</font>]]) 22:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
+#:::: Understood.  [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] ([[User talk:Ral315|talk]]) 06:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 #'''Oppose''' per history of "cut twice, measure once" above, hoped that after 2nd RfA he'd become more of a "measure twice, cut once" type of person, but I see no evidence of that. [[User:Pete.Hurd|Pete.Hurd]] 22:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 #'''Oppose''' per Sarah Ewart and Xoloz.--[[User:R613vlu|R613vlu]] 23:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)