Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ryulong 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Ryulong

      run at Wed Jan 17 08:51:16 2007 GMT

Category talk:                  4
Category:                       137
Help talk:                      1
Help:                           2
Image talk:                     5
Image:                          737
Mainspace                       20581
MediaWiki talk:                 4
Portal:                         9
Talk:                           2559
Template talk:                  67
Template:                       758
User talk:                      8603
User:                           1490
Wikipedia talk:                 189
Wikipedia:                      5093
avg edits per article           2.70
earliest                        20:12, 6 February 2006
number of unique articles       14879
total                           40239

From http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Ryulong&site=en.wikipedia.org --Kind Regards -Heligoland 08:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] To further explain my support

Simply put, Ryulong does a ridiculous amount of anti-vandalism. It's almost comical that he doesn't have all of the tools that he needs to operate at the fullest. Normally RFA is about determining trust; I don't see any trust problems whatsoever with Ryulong. He's been here for a long time, he's done a lot of work, and he's well-qualified to get the tools to use them in his anti-vandalism efforts. --Cyde Weys 17:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A request for adminship is based on how much the user can be trusted with the tools. Volume of edits doesn't really have anything to do with that. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Er, I haven't voted here and have no axe to grind, Sam, but I don't really think that's what Cyde said. Chick Bowen 17:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I meant volume of edits relating to vandalism, not just volume of edits generally - it's the proportion of those edits which give cause for concern which is important. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how proportion of counter-vandalism work is a relevant metric. CSCWEM did a lot of counter-vandalism, but he also did a lot outside that narrow area, more than most RFA people, yet he got opposed by some people because he also reverted "too much" vandalism! It's absurd. And frankly, if the metric is valid at all, it really means that someone who does more counter-vandalism needs the tools more. How often does an article writer really need the tools? Rarely. How often does a dedicated vandal fighter need the tools? Every few minutes. --Cyde Weys 05:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Especially just now when I fought at least three Primetime sockpuppets single handedly, blindfolded, and he had popups.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone re-add my comments to the "General Comment Section" ?

This was in the correct space that anon's are explictedly asked to put their comments in. It was improperly removed and seems like "anon-discrimination" to me. I don't care how much "blatant" vandalism you see. An IP address does not mean-shoot on sight. Check the user history and anyone can see that I'm certainly not a SPA and my comments was neutral and non-attacking (as they were in most other RfA's that I have commented on). As an anon user my experience is directly affected by admins and I do have natural consideration and concern for those who have admin tools. I think actions like the careless blanking of my comment should be condemed by any Admin candidate. 205.157.110.11 01:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My comments were

  1. Neutral I would be very hesitant by the "quick trigger" this user seems to have in regards to AIV and also general user interaction. I've also seen a little lack of good faith in dealing with some anon accounts. I know it tough with all the serious vandalism that hits but sometimes you need to hold on the reins. 205.157.110.11 02:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I've readded it. As it's "neutral", it probably wouldn't be a problem if you put it in the neutral section, because it's not a vote, per say (and yes, they are votes on RfA, as opposed to xfd's, unfortunately). Patstuarttalk|edits 01:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Pat. I edited before in the Neutral section but was asked to stay in the Comments area, so I will abide. Even though it's a vote here, I still want to contribute in the discussion aspect. 205.157.110.11 03:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Someone thought it'd be funny to derail this with a bunch of single purpose accounts, and that harms editors such as yourself.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To futher explain my opposition

I have done my best to piece together the chronology of the erroneous blocking of my account in December 2006 as it relates to Ryulong's actions concerning that blocking and several Wikipedia articles to which I had contributed or authored.

(1) Administrator dmcdevit imposed the erroneous block for being a sockpuppet of Cute 1 4 u. [1]
(2) Very quickly (apparently within 6 minutes) after my account was erroneously blocked, Ryulong reverted my prior edits to the Doris Hart, [2] Chris Evert, [3] Pat Canning Todd, [4] and Grand Slam (tennis) [5] articles and requested speedy deletion of my Tennis performance timeline comparison (women) [6] article. Seven minutes later, he reverted his reversions of the first four articles (without explaining why) [7] [8] [9] [10] but did not rescind his requested speedy deletion of the other article.
(3) Within 10 minutes, Enochlau removed the speedy deletion request because the article had survived a recent AfD. [11]
(4) Ryulong then posted this on Enochlau's talkpage: "While I do see that the article has survived an AFD, it was created by a banned problem user (Cute 1 4 u) under a sockpuppet account created during her ban. I can see that these two issues conflict each other, but which is given more weight in the long run?" [12]
(5) When I learned of the block, I immediately requested an unblock on my talkpage through the established procedures. [13]
(6) J.smith courteously replied on my talkpage that he had sent a note to dmcdevit about my request. [14]
(7) One minute later and despite the fact that Ryulong is not an administrator, Ryulong denied my unblock request and said the following on my talkpage: "decline=This block was made because it was proven through CheckUser evidence that shows you and Tennislover are the same person, and Tennislover and Cute 1 4 u are the same person. Cute 1 4 u is banned for having exhausted the community's patience in evading her indefinite block, and now her ban. The only way to appeal a checkuser block is to request that another checkuser be performed to prove that you are not this banned user." His edit summary was as follows: "reviewed per discussion with Dmcdevit and other administration." [15]
(8) Catchpole then posted about Ryulong's denial of my unblock request even though he is not an administrator. Catchpole said, "It looks like the user in question has had an unblock declined by User:Ryulong who is not an admin, yet the note on User:Tennis expert's user talk page suggests he is." [16].
(9) Ryulong's response to Catchpole was as follows: "I asked several administrators to look over that message before I sent it to her, including the blocking administrator. Frankly, there is not much that can be done in a checkuser block (from what I was told) other than to request that another checkuser be performed. And my actions such as that there have been discussed before in that they are not harmful. I know I cannot unblock, and I don't expect to do that for a while, but things such as checkuser blocks or blatant attacks are things that can be reviewed and declined. However, I will 'un-review' it, and just place all of my commentary beneath it, seeing as this is more complex than usual." [17]
(10) Ryulong then rescinded his denial of my unblock request and changed his commentary on my talkpage to read as follows: "This block was made because it was proven through CheckUser evidence that shows you and Tennislover utilize the same IP address range, and Tennislover and Cute 1 4 u do, as well. Cute 1 4 u is banned for having exhausted the community's patience in evading her indefinite block, and now her ban. The only way to appeal a checkuser block is to request that another checkuser be performed to prove that you are not this banned user." [18]
(11) dmcdevit then posted this: "I no longer think that any block is supported by the evidence, and thank everyone here for the time put into this. With help from Mackensen, the evidence from CheckUser, not just behavior, doesn't support that claim. I think it was a giant misreading of the evidence, perhaps compounded by a bit of confirmation bias in seeing Tennislover and Tennis expert at the same time. I can't really give the technical explanation that would make this mix-up seem more plausible without giving away personally identifiable information, but another checkuser agrees in the assessment based on IPs that they are different. Apologies for the undue hassle this may have caused...." [19]

I could not support anyone's candidacy for administrator who had taken the above actions within the last 6 to 7 weeks. If those actions had happened 6 months ago, I probably would feel differently. Given what happened as outlined above and for the reasons expressed by others concerning matters entirely unrelated to me, I strongly but respectfully oppose Ryulong's candidacy. Tennis expert 08:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break for Bbatsell

From what I read right here, I seriously think that this candidate is not suitable to become admin. He's admin-wannable even before he acquires administration power. I will not be surprised that when he becomes an admin he will block User:Tennis expert as a revenge over this dispute. This kind of action leaves a lot to be desired. Keep in mind that my judgement is based on this phrase: admins status are not accquired by edit counts, but his/her abilities to serve the community and make it better.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by OhanaUnited (talk • contribs).

(edit conflict, reply to comments above this one) You have got to be kidding me. Let's summarize all of the above with some actual facts:
  1. A user is blocked by CheckUser evidence. Administrators are instructed never to touch CheckUser blocks because CheckUsers have much more information than administrators do. Ryulong had nothing to do with the block or CU investigation.
  2. Ryulong reverted edits and added CSD tags in accordance with the block issued by Dmcdevitt. This is entirely supported by policy. I personally don't agree with the policy, but that is neither here nor there — it's what policy clearly states.
  3. Ryulong declines the unblock request because the blocking CheckUser had already been notified by J.Smith, which is exactly what is supposed to happen in this situation. No administrator can take further action until the CheckUser investigates, so the unblock request was no longer helpful, and would have wasted the time of every user or admin who reviews CAT:UNBLOCK.
  4. When asked to clarify his actions, Ryulong responds courteously and explains exactly why he did what he did, and changed his wording and actions in light of the criticism/questions, rather than simply ignoring it.
  5. The CU investigates and rescinds the block.
Now could you explain to me, where in that sequence of events, Ryulong did anything wrong? Anywhere, please? Please note that I have not voted in this RfA; I have no dog in this fight. I have a few reservations and am choosing to abstain this go-round, but opposing due to this non-incident is ridiculous, as is assuming an indescribable amount of bad faith by saying that if promoted, he would issue a revenge block. Just astounding. —bbatsell ¿? 08:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Bbatsell, since I was the administrator who flouted this "policy": can you please point me in its direction? before, during, and after, I looked for it but could not find any policy about what to do with Checkuser blocks. -- Renesis (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe Template:Checkuserblock would help? Somitho 09:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break for Ryulong

What I was doing at the time was covered by Wikipedia:Banning policy which means that a reincarnation of a banned user has all of his/her edits undone and any pages created deleted per the general criterion for the pages created by banned users. As was said on the main page:

“ 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) ”
“ …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. ”
“ I don't understand why Ryulong should be faulted for acting in accordance with policy. Not that the policy is correct necessarily, but the information he had at the time was that this was a banned user and policy dictates that banned users' edits are reverted and deleted if new pages. Change the policy if you want, but I don't understand why you're opposing someone for knowing our policies and acting in accordance with them. --Keitei (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC) ”

I am sorry that I did not look deeper into your edits to put everything together (for all I knew, Cute 1 4 u could have gotten interested in tennis instead of That's So Raven), but what I was doing was following Wikipedia policy. There is nothing that normal administrators can do when dealing with a block performed by someone with checkuser priveleges, and I suggested that you seek another checkuser to confirm/refute/whatever, and this could have been performed by e-mailing someone listed at Special:Userlist/checkuser or the mailing lists. I did not give you this explicit information at the time, and I apologize for not doing so. As is said, there is nothing that could ever be done by a normal administrator, and Dmcdevit did what was necessary to change everything.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And to OhanaUnited, I will never do such a thing. I haven't even had any sort of contact with Tennis expert in the time period since then, and I will never do anything out of spite. Please assume some good faith here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break for Tennis expert

Ryulong, I have a few questions that have been nagging me. (1) Why did you revert your reversions of my edits? (2) Given that you reverted your reversions, why did you keep your request for speedy deletion? (3) Did you have advance knowledge of the erroneous block of my account? (4) Assuming that you did not have advance notice, how were you able to revert my edits within 6 minutes of the block being placed? (5) When you denied my unblock request, were you aware of J. smith's post on my talkpage? (6) When you rescinded your denial of my unblock request, why did you feel it necessary to keep the commentary on my talkpage (in a slightly revised form)? (7) Finally, why did you revise the commentary?

And just for the record, there is absolutely no evidence that you would seek revenge on me by using your new administrator powers. I am just as appalled at the suggestion as you. Tennis expert 08:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to respond as best as I can.
  1. I cannot exactly remember the reason, but I believe I saw the edits as constructive.
  2. Per the Wikipedia:Banning policy, pages created by banned editors are to be deleted as CSD#G5.
  3. I did not have advance knowledge of the erroneous block. It was either from how I have the Cute 1 4 u RFCU page watchlisted, so I saw when a new request came in; I was at RFCU that night and I saw the closed RFCU request, or it came in through the recent changes channel (blocks of all lengths are recorded).
  4. Same as the above, with more weight towards the recent changes channel or the RFCU watchlist.
  5. I cannot recall being aware of the post by J.smith.
  6. My comments were relevant to the situation at hand (and removing them would do nothing really, as they had already been stated)
  7. I realized the mistakes I made (checkuser goes by the IP utilized, not the person), and I fixed them.
When I go through CAT:RFU (there is nothing that says anywhere that {{unblock}} requests cannot be reviewed by non-admins), I soley remove either obvious "No, you're not getting unblocked because you just called X a Y," assist users who are autoblocked by telling them to utilize {{unblock-auto}} instead of {{unblock}}, or review unblock-autos that are from direct blocks. I had thought (erroneously) at the time that your request was a simple "can't be undone, really" and I contacted Dmcdevit privately, and several other administrators privately about the matter as to whether or not I should have done so. There was no opposition from those I queried, and I sincerely apologize for the problems that occured due to all of this. Now, there is an explicit mention that "Don't ever undo checkuser blocks without consulting the blocking checkuser" by Mackensen (another individual with checkuser priveleges), and if I continue to go through the category and I come upon a checkuser block, I will go straight to the checkuserer, as is now "policy."—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break for Hbdragon88

Eh? The {{unblock}} template says this: Administrators: Replace this template with one of the following:. It explicitly names who should do the template. (I do understand that some admins appreciate your work there.) Also, I don't think anybody disputes that you follow policy; much of the oppose votes cite WP:BITE. You can follow policy but still be biting. Hbdragon88 09:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The policy trifecta states that If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them. I do so, and in the extremely rare case that was Tennis expert's block, I did so, but was wrong.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, WP:IAR. But there are some areas that IAR really just can't be invoked. Non-admins cannot close TFDs or AFDs, even with a snowball keep; these go to DRV and the debate is usually reopened because a non-admin stepped in. I feel that unblocks should be handled the same way. (I'm also unsurprised that you answered within five minutes.) Hbdragon88 09:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Non-administrators can WP:SNOW AFDs. Not to stick beans in my nose, but I recently did deal with speedy closing this, as it did not have a snowball's chance in hell, and they were all, "Keep," "Strong Keep," "Speedy Keep," etc. in that situation, all in the span of 48 hours.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Unless you're claiming that Tennis expert's block was valid and improved Wikipedia, which I thought we'd worked out it didn't, I don't see how WP:IAR in the words you quote applies here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I ignored all rules at the time, not knowing anything beyond the fact that there was nothing that could be done concerning the checkuser block. It certainly turned out that IAR then was a bad idea.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 11:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
In a nutshell, it wasn't a bad idea to review the request at the time. All I saw was "Cute 1 4 u sockpuppet through checkuser" (I had dealt with that user during the summer). After all of what happened, I found out I was wrong, undid what I did, and then everything (I hope) has worked out for the better with Tennis expert's Wikipedia experience.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 11:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, Hbdragon88, do you understand the purpose of the unblock template? It is to notify administrators of a contested block and to request investigation. By placing the unblock template on your talk page, you are added to CAT:UNBLOCK for administrators and users who check that page (of which I am one) to look into it. It also notifies users via a bot on IRC every 10 minutes or so. In this instance, it was a CheckUser block, which administrators cannot review or change. End of story. The CU had already been notified, so the unblock template served the only purpose it could in this particular instance. Leaving it active would have wasted the time of LOTS of editors and administrators who investigate unblock requests (like myself). Had Ryulong removed the unblock template entirely then I could understand your complaint, but he didn't — he did exactly what should be done in this case. I think there is a lack of understanding here in what the unblock template is for, especially by people who don't actually spend any time reviewing the requests. —bbatsell ¿? 20:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Which is unfortunate. To me, the unblock template is somewhat sacred. It is one of the few things that on Wikipedia that explicitly states who can respond to it (admins). I just reread through the deletion process guides, and they merely refer to "volunteers" being able to close discussions (which includes non-admins and admins, not only admins like I wrote eariler). If Tennis expert's block was that cut-and-dried, an admin just should have done it. Instead, it's spawned this massive discussion. Uninformed people are going to ask, admins will have to reexplain why Ryulong's denial was okay, and so forth. Far more time here - this RFA in particular, as this happened a month after Ryulong withdrew from his second RFA - has been spent discussing Ryulong's actions than if an admin had gotten to it first. Hbdragon88 08:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, now everyone (who was here at least), knows. Yes, anyone can take this kind of action. Hopefully this issue won't come up again in future. (which on wikipedia typically means: it'll show up again roughly 3 months from now :-P ) --Kim Bruning 07:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
LOL, quite true. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a backlog at requests for unblock, and been two inches from doing some denials. But having seen so many people get mad at Ryulong for it (in this and previous RfA's), I figured it's better to let the sleeping bear rest (or some other silly idiom; gosh, it's late). Patstuarttalk|edits 08:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I figure that that's exactly what we don't want, eh! Please help with the backlog! --Kim Bruning 08:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
*Groan*, do you have your explicit administrator permission? I'd hate to have someone get mad at me for turning someone down. Patstuarttalk|edits 08:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
At some point in the past, it was a requirement to become an admin. You had to show a situation where someone had gotten mad at you for taking an administrative-type-action, and how you resolved it neatly. ;-) --Kim Bruning 08:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The result of this RfA

The result of this RfA is being discussed at WP:BN. ViridaeTalk 08:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No, WT:RFA, let's keep it in one place. – Chacor 08:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Concur. Good show! Thanks Chacor! :-) --Kim Bruning 08:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disappointment

I am starting to get disappointed in how people handle things here. A consensus is not a vote, a consensus is simply a determination of a debate. Ryulong has been granted the tools, and has promised to use them well. IF he breaks policy and goes nutso; then take it up with arbcom. Raul654 didn't cabalize it, and his name should not be tarnished over determining consensus. Frankly Chacor, I have seen issues with you since your own ArbCom ruling came down and your mop was taken away for policy you broke. I respect your opinions, but you have seem to have come into some attitude issues.

Do I support and continue to support Ryulong? Yes.
Am I worried he may cause issues with blocks? No, or I would not have nominated him.
Do I hear and recognize the community issues? Yes, of course I do; and they are quite valid. But on the other hand, a consensus has been reached and Ryulong HAS been made an admin. The only way this is going to change is with an ArbCom ruling.
Should Ryulong step down? Not at this time, if he shows bad faith and becomes a problem then yes. But stepping down would be a disappointment to those who did support him, and would be a show of bad faith from the community; as he had not done anything to justify a resignation.

I hope we all can make the best of this, and besides cross-posting this to the WT:RFA page, the only time I will post on such issues. Somitho 09:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How the hell is this turning into an attack on me when I'm not the only one who has expressed disappointment at this? This is ridiculous. – Chacor 09:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
"I like him" is an unacceptable closing reason. Period. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 09:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
You do realize that it is nearly 5 am in the States (I shouldn't even be up right now)? Let's wait a few more hours so things can be explained by the man who did the act instead of saying the same things over and over, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
He knows. (You saw us talking, earlier :-) ) It'll be fine! Get some sleep! :-) --Kim Bruning 10:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on people informing me that Frankly Chacor, I have seen issues with you since your own ArbCom ruling came down and your mop was taken away for policy you broke. I respect your opinions, but you have seem to have come into some attitude issues. could have turned into a personal attack, I formally retract such statement with apologies. It was never meant to be a personal attack, just an issue I pointed out. Somitho 09:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether it's a personal attack or not, the problem with stuff like that in general is that it's ad hominen and usually just leads to wikidrama. Thanks for retracting it. Perhaps you could strike it, as well, to hammer home the point.--Kchase T 11:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timing trends

I did some quick analysis, not attempting to eliminate single purpose accounts or evaluate reasons, just timing trends. I measured timing from his acceptance, which was an hour after the nomination.

Where people ended up:
First 24 hours: 65/18/0 78%
After 48 hours: 79/30/3 72%
After 72 hours: 86/32/6 73%
After 96 hours: 98/37/7 73%
After 120 hours: 107/43/7 71%
After 144 hours: 114/50/7 70%
After 167 hours: 125/55/7 69%

Where people were at the time:
First 24 hours: 68/21/5 76%
After 48 hours: 80/34/7 70%
After 72 hours: 86/35/8 71%
After 96 hours: 100/41/7 71%
After 120 hours: 108/46/7 70%
After 144 hours: 114/52/7 69% (at this point he said he would be open to recall)
After 167 hours: 125/55/7 69%

I come away with two findings myself. First, the percentage was essentially stable from 48 hours to the end of the period. Second, that there is no reason to think more time would have changed the percentage significantly. GRBerry 06:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I actually believe this was more stable than usual; my observation is that opposition tends to quickly snowball and grow greater as the rfa continues, precisely becuase people read opposition arguments, and are more emboldened to vote against the candidate. Patstuarttalk|edits 06:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)