Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryulong

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Ryulong

Final (54/35/12) Ended 20:20, 2006-08-10 (UTC)

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

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, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I would assist in the reports at

WP:AFD

that have been nominated for deletion, and may have been recreated by the original author (I have occasionally browsed through the AFD logs and searched for such links, and either contacted an administrator or listed the pages for speedy deletion under CSD G4).

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

A: I am particularly pleased with my contributions to the various articles about Power Rangers to keep the pages in as good a condition so that one day they can be perhaps Good Articles, instead of fan forums or fan pages. I am also proud of my contribution to WikiProject Hawaiʻi so that finally their ʻokina can be viewed by all users, Internet Explorer editors, FireFox editors, and Mac editors.

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

A: Of the few editting conflicts I have been involved in, most of them have been due to my status as an RC Patroller, as well as some truthful vandal reverts that I had been temporarily blocked for due to 3RR. I have, and will continue to try and defer to others if necessary to prevent my breaking of any rules. There have been some users that have caused me a bit of stress, but to relieve my stress, I have used methods of calming myself, such as taking short wikibreaks to calm myself with music and other stress relievers.

Question 4. by FloNight

Your Wikipedia email account is not activated. Why? Will you activate so that users can contact you regarding admins issues? FloNight ^talk 13:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer It was only recently (within the past week) that I had even put in anything related to an e-mail address into my preferences. I have not activated this, yet, because I am currently using my personal e-mail address (not a hotmail, gmail, yahoo, etc. account). If I can, I will change the e-mail address associated with it to the one I have through school (which instead will redirect to my personal mailbox so I will be able to reply easily). Ryūlóng 20:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Optional question from Lar:

5. (one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 18:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware about voluntary recall/review, but if such a situation were to occur if I were to become an admin, I would not object to such a review. It would give me constructive criticism as to my (currently hypothetical) status as an admin and my faults as an editor, just as the various opposition votes below are calling into question now. I have heard about Rouge admins to an extent, but I have not really looked into the situation (the most I know is that "Rouge" is purposefully used instead of "Rogue", and I can discern that it must mean that the admins have gone rogue/AWOL/amok in some form). I do see that the process of Rouge admins is calling into question the faults of the user, albeit in a humorous fashion. If another admin felt I was going "Rouge", then I would take it as it was intended, constructive (yet funny) criticism. Now, I have to see what "WP:WONK" is. Ryūlóng 23:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Comment: I have recently commented on
  npa4}} warning after the capslock tirade. Ryūlóng 05:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I had asked some of the admins in the IRC channels at one point if it was all right to deny unblock requests of blatant vandals that had been indefblocked, and it was said that I could. Ryūlóng 03:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment-- I've already switched my vote once, so I'll not do it again. I am concerned, however, about oppose votes based on "0FA". I believe requiring a Featured Article of RfA candidates is overly strict but does not accurately gauge their suitability to be admin's. It artificially raises the bar for their editing ability while not addressing suitability in the areas of containing vandalism, *fD, or copyright. The backlogs in
  WP:DRV are affecting the quality of Wikipedia. More admin's are needed to deal with the backlogs. The greatest threats to Wikipedia are legal-- litigation has been brought or threatened because of libelous content added by vandals, notable subjects having articles about them removed as not notable, and use of copyrighted material without the consent of the copyright holder. The need for admins with demonstrated knowledge and expertise in these areas outweighs the need for more Featured articles. Hopefully Bureaucrats will discount "oppose" votes based on lack of a Featured Article in RfA's where the candidate has demonstrated suitability in these areas.. :) Dlohcierekim 13:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Viewing contribution data for user Ryulong (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 17 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 7hr (UTC) -- 04, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 0hr (UTC) -- 18, July, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 56.8% Minor edits: 21.62%
Average edits per day: 481.93 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 446 edits): Major article edits: 93.4% Minor article edits: 24.32%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 39 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.02% (1)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.42% (21)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 14.92% (746)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 11.71%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 36 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 2291 | Average edits per page: 2.18 | Edits on top: 21.9%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 9.76% (488 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 0.86% (43 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 41.06% (2053 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 33.92% (1696 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 51.7% (2585) | Article talk: 8.4% (420)
User: 3.82% (191) | User talk: 24.8% (1240)
Wikipedia: 7.04% (352) | Wikipedia talk: 0.92% (46)
Image: 1.08% (54)
Template: 1.86% (93)
Category: 0.18% (9)
Portal: 0.04% (2)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.16% (8)

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

Support

1. e^{(Talk•Contribs)} 20:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC) — as nominator.[reply
   ]
2. Support - Recent good experience with this user, his/her thoughtful consideration of an issue changed my opinion. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Looks great to me. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 20:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support Impressive numbers! Gladly support. --Tuspm ^{(C | @)} 20:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support (2x edit conflict) – will not abuse the tools. See
   talk
   ) _{20:47, 03 August '06}
6. Strong support The user seems very competent, has a strong presence on both article and user talk pages (and I'm a big fan of admins who freely use talk pages), has been pegged as an excellent editor by many other editors (as judging from his user and talk pages), and has tons upon tons of edits. I see absolutely no reason Ryulong could not and should not be an admin. -- Kicking222 20:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Support. Seems to be a well rounded editor with clear uses for the mop. Themindset 20:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing my vote based on this diff [1]. I will wait to see how this RFA plays out. Themindset 22:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7. Reaffirmed support. I find the nominee's explanation of the Emory diff satisfactory, I don't see him abusing the tools. Themindset 20:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Strong Support per my experiences with the user. G.He 20:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Rama's arrow 21:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support I've seen this user often on RC patrol and I believe the extra buttons will allow him to become much more productive hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support per nom. Couldnt find anything I'd disagree with. Contributes pretty much everywhere. SynergeticMaggot 21:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support I've seen you around and you're a great editor. You'd be even better as an admin. Roy A.A. 21:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support per nom. --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 21:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support for reasons of my own, though I'd like to suggest being careful with that block button. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 21:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support per nom and consistent with my standards. Joe 22:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Strong support Requests for adminship/Ryulong is a dedicated, hard working wikipedian that has shown me sound judgement, I have no problems in supporting him, the diff's in oppose fail to sway me
    Benon 23:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Weak support Switch to oppose. I find it irksome when a candidate's apologists "debate" oppose voters. based on edit count and time meet User:Dlohcierekim#Standards. However, I agree with User:Jaranda that the User:68.221.59.61 - Emory University affair could have been handled better. Comment- After reviewing 68.221.59.61 Contribs and User_talk:68.221.59.61, I believe the edits were questionable but not quite vandalism, and that the situation escalated beyond reason. I would suggest that User:Ryulong step back from confrontation and be a little less quick on the draw-- or to condemn. I was RCPatrolling at the time and almost tagged User:68.221.59.61 myself. Either User:Ryulong beat me to it or I had a doubt and stopped. The other item marked by Jaranda also concerns me. We are less WP Police than coaches. Wikipedia is not a paper (or granite) encyclopedia. We can always change edits we don't like. We cannot bring back editors driven off by overly zealous RCPatrolling. :) Dlohcierekim 00:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

17. Strong support - great vandal fighter and a dedicated editor abakharev 00:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Does this user ever sleep???? Crazynas ^t 01:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Sleep is for weak people. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

19. Support. Maybe he can sleep when he becomes an admin...I hope. Excellent user. alphaChimp ^laudare 01:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support, good vandal fighter, editor, will make a good admin. --
    Chat | Contribs) 02:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
21. Strong Support His dedication to this project speaks for itself. Although, he had made a few mistakes along the way (see the oppose comments), it is not right to view them in an exclusive manner. His positive contributions outweighs the negative edits considerably. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support. Only positive interactions with this user, plus he has four time my edit count! RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support I have seen this user's diligence and hard work and support this nomination. Michael 04:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support Good user; admin powers will be in good hands Brian | (Talk) 05:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support He deserves to be an admin. dedicates himself to hard work on Wikipedia for becoming admin. *~Daniel~* ☎ 06:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support, reasons under oppose don't make me think the user will be a bad admin.--Andeh 09:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. I doubt he'd abuse the tools, Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 09:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support, meets my requirements, and everyone makes mistakes. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support take the mop :P —
    Review Me 11:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
30. Support. Deb 11:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support ticks all my boxes! A solid user. Thε Halo ^Θ 15:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support per nom! —Khoikhoi 20:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support. -
    Mailer Diablo 23:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
34. Supprt'. As per nom. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Strong Support. I've worked with him in the past and found him to be a good, responsible editor, and a hard-working vandal-fighter (which is why I'm temporarily coming out of Wikibreak to support him). Also, I commend him for not mollycoddling those who come to Wikipedia to destroy its integrity. jgp (T|C) 01:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Ho-hum. I had been mentally mulling over (granted, I have a tendency to mentally mull things over without actually doing them...) a longish nomination for this user when I see I've been beaten to it. On the "rvv" thing: There are much worse crimes. I've seen it a few times, and it has sometimes bothered me (only sometimes; most of the time they are without a doubt bad edits that should be reverted anyway) and I had been meaning him to needle him about it. So, yes, he's made mistakes in the past, and I'm glad that this RFA has highlighted them; there is no doubt in my mind that he will learn from them. The long and short of it is, however, that he's a good editor who knows what he's doing. As such, he should not be denied use of administrative tools, as far as I am concerned.--
    T 03:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
37. Support. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support -- Tawker 06:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. Daniel.Bryant 07:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
40. Strong support Strong RC patrolling record; appears able to handle things in a calm manner. Seems to be handling the User:YourCousin issue well. A few mistakes are inevitable for a dedicated RC patroller, given the blur that RC edits can become. --Emufarmers^(T/C) 10:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support MER-C 10:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Strong support Already a valuable contributor, Ryulong's potential as an admin is extensive. --
    Gray Porpoise 18:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
43. Strong support I have seen him at work shows he is a valuable user
    Betacommand 01:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
44. Support Most of Ryulong's edits that I've personally witnessed have been AFD contributions and RC patrolling, and have mostly indicated to me that the contributor will be a responsible admin. — NMChico24 02:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. Full support. This editor is a valuable part of the project; I'm confident that now or later, whenever this editor is given the mop and bucket, it'll be a net gain for Wikipedia. The opposition votes seem overly picky. Give this editor a mop! JDoorjam Talk 06:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. Strong Support. Active vandal-fighter and helpful in patrolling edits on a wide variety of articles. Often I'll go away from a page briefly intending to come back and fix it after a short break, only to find he's already done what I'd intended.--Rosicrucian 14:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support --CFIF (talk to me) 17:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - Keep up the good work against vandals! With the right tools, they won't know what's hit them!

    Wikiwoohoo 21:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Duplicate[reply

    ]

    Daniel.Bryant 00:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Duplicate[reply

    ]

48. Support He'll be a good one.
    T) 00:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
49. Support. Huge asset to counter-vandalism efforts; I will heartily encourage you, Ryu, to work on civility and AGF-ness, because some people have brought up good points in that regard. On the other hand, your effectiveness as a vandalfighter will be dramatically increased by the extra buttons, and I don't believe I've ever seen you !admin for a bad block. Good luck. :) Luna Santin 01:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. DarthVader 22:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support very dedicated editor, i believe he will make a great admin. Wikipediarules2221 01:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support active vandal fighter. --physicq210 02:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support as per nom. Kitia
54. Support Impressive record.--Runcorn 21:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose active vandal fighter but too new in my opinion [2] was worriesome, as he never did vandalism, instead he was blocked for 3rr content dispute. I don't see any vandalism from edits like [3] nither. I'll support in 3 months.
   ^{wat's sup} 21:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]

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

   talk

   ) _{21:22, 03 August '06}

   I know of an unnamed admin who RfA'd one and a half months after joining the project and who is currently a well respected member of the MopSquad.... :D - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I mean too new as not experinced enough yet. Those edits are from 2 days ago.

   ^{wat's sup} 21:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Sorry, I guess I don't follow. Which edits? Ryulong has been here 6 months, or are you talking about something else? Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Jaranda's got a point: the second link's edit summary is rvv when it's clearly not vandalism, a big pet peeve of mine; I see rvv used far too much, and for things that are not vandalism.--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

2. Oppose. Fails WP:civility and WP:assume good faith. The Emory University incident is very disturbing. If he had the mop, I wonder when he would have blocked the anon user and for how long. How many potentially good editors has he turned away from 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). Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose I'm going to have to oppose given the all-too-recent Emory U incident. AdamBiswanger1 03:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose per the Emery U diff. Kimchi.sg 03:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose. I think that you need a little more time to learn how to identify vandalism accurately. -- JamesTeterenko 03:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Reluctant Oppose. You are a great vandal-fighter, and I see your name often on the vandalism-reporting boards... but rvvs for non-vandalistic edits stick in my craw. I could be convinced to change my !vote, if there was a good reason, though.--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose Per above. --Masssiveego 05:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Strong Oppose I see you on IRC countervandalism channel, you do hard work at fighting vandalism. But, I'm afraid you too quick to want rangeblocks for long durations for petty vandalism, too quick to use the summary 'rvv' for all reverts, too quick to assume vandalism and bad faith. When I approached you about AGF on some newer users, you (and I still not sure how much you were joking) stated that you prefer to assume bad faith. You've stated on IRC you hate newbies. There's too much biting on the newbies. You need to get a lot more good faith and wikiettique toward people who make newbie mistakes. Rethink how wiki treats its newer users, who aren't accustomed to policy, and do want to help, but make otherwise silly mistakes. Example: [4], they didn't know. They may not even know the history exists. And if they did, they'd likely be driven off by you telling them to go back to their fanforum. Here, [5] where you attack the anonymous editor for mistyping 'meet' into 'meat'. There's other stuff. Edit summaries, and lack of real project space edits, tagging images with fair use tags w/o also adding fair use rationales... I do not believe you are ready, Sorry.
   Kevin_b_er 05:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   If that's the worst difs you can come up with, then I think you are over reacting.--Andeh 09:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9. Sorry must Oppose per these diffs [6], [7] [8] and other points made by Ted and
   Kevin_b_er. The diff. shows that the nom is not well acclimated to Wikipedia culture and does not fully understand how to implement policies and guidelines. Also the nom does not have their Wikipedia email activated. FloNight ^talk 12:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
10. Oppose as per TedE and the Emory University diff. Too recent an incident. Sorry. --T. Moitie ^[talk] 12:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose In addition to the Emory University incident, I noticed that the nominee reverted this piece of vandalism (if vandalism is the correct term to use) and then a whole five minutes later gave the user an unnecessarily harsh warning, even though the user had already been warned for the same incident. These kinds of things are appearing to occur too often for my comfort. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose based on various oppose diffs. Lapinmies 13:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose per Jaranda. I was under the impression that only an admin could review an unblock request, so Ryulong had no business reviewing the block. (Not stopping him leaving his own comment, but to replace the unblock template with the unblock reviewed template was very odd in my book. Especially when it states that the block has been reviewed by an admin. Other things brought up - especially with regard to the attitude to newbies also worry me. I will consider supporting a few months time if you change your attitude. Viridae^Talk 14:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Strong oppose at this time for all of the above reasons, with no prejudice against supporting the user for a future adminship once he's a little more familiar with the system. I'm concerned by all of the whack-a-vandal admins we're trying to move up lately. -- nae'blis 15:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Strong oppose per apparent lack of knowledge of basic rules. MonsterOfTheLake 17:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm assuming the main reason your opposing is because of the dispute you had with the user on your userpage.--Andeh 17:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The nominee did not know the user page policies. I believe that it should be taken for granted that any nominee would know the MOST basic policies. MonsterOfTheLake 17:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like the user was warning you for removing warnings from your talk page, and it carried on for a while. Looks like it is still occuring, See MonsterOfTheLake talk page history for more info on this.--Andeh 17:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, I'm right in the situation -- but never you mind that, must help out your buddies right? Even if I were at fault here (I'm not, and you could already click on the link from all my sigs, no?), it still has no place in the adminship discussion. You can't simply attack critics. Whatever I do, it still doesn't take away the fact that this user acts on his friends' influence, doesn't contact the user he exerts force on, and did not, until I pointed it out today, know a very simple userpage policy. MonsterOfTheLake 02:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Why are you accusing me of helping out my "buddies", I simply gave the link so other users can see the situation. For someone who has "Wikipedia sucks" as a userpage and has edit summaries like this, I think it's important to give users links to any situations that are occuring so they can make their own decision whether to support or not.--Andeh 12:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed: You appear to have indicated that you do not want any messages on your talk page, and have blanked it repeatedly. Your

    user page, and its policies are different. Removing warnings and messages indiscriminately from your talk page without archiving them is not permitted; there's even a template for warning users about this, which Ryulong correctly used in your case. I'd suggest you read up on Wikipedia policies and etiquette, MonsterOfTheLake. --Emufarmers^(T/C) 12:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

    ]

16. Oppose due to fresh improper rvv use, per above Oppose diffs. Please review our policies.
    Vandalism generally occurs when the editor clearly and intentionally, in his/her own mind, intends to reduce the quality of WP. Just posting something many would disagree with is not vandalism. After you show understanding of this issue for a couple of months, I would support the nomination. We do need vandalism fighters and thank you for the effort - don't give up! Crum375 20:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
17. Mild Oppose Not good awnsers to the questions, and also per above. Maybe later. --WikieZach| talk 23:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Polite oppose. An excellent editor, but one who needs to work on civility some more. Not everyone who makes a bad edit does so out of assholishness. DS 02:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose per basically all of the above diffs. I'm concerned about the newbie-biting, I really don't want an admin doing that. Maybe in a few months if the civility problems are resolved. BryanG^(talk) 06:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose Sorry, but just on my rather short observations, I don't feel this editor is ready. KOS | talk 11:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Switch to oppose. I find it irksome when a candidate's apologists "debate" oppose voters. That, on top of the aforementioned incivility tips me to oppose. Editor needs to tone it down a bit and develop a more urbane approach. Please note my comments under my stricken "suport" vote. Thanks  :) Dlohcierekim 14:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment to more fully explain my vote change. I believe the User:MonsterOfTheLake affair, coming on the heels as it does of the Emory affair, shows this user is not ready for adminship. It is another example of overly aggressive over reaction and mistaking a difference of opinion or ignorant error for vandalism. 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. Cheers.  :) Dlohcierekim 11:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

22. Oppose don't think he is ready yet, my own experience is of being rather too quick of the mark, requests for page protections and blocks which are in my view premature even if they sometimes ultimately prove right. --pgk^(talk) 16:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose per Emory and especially [9]. Not only Jaranda's worries about it being 3RR instead of Vandalism, and thus an unblock might have been okay in some circumstances, but importantly, the fact that non-admins should not be denying unblocking. The confusion over 3RR/Vandalism was one good reason why admins should handle this, not to mention the actual wording of {{unblock}}, which states that "one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request." He was not an administrator, and in my opinion, he needs a bit more time before he becomes one. Ral315 (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose per FloNight and Ral315. Editor cannot yet be trusted to follow wiki-process, and always to enforce NPOV. Xoloz 16:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. oppose as per Ral315, and diffs supplied by tariqabjotu, etc Pete.Hurd 21:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Weak Oppose per Ral315, and other diffs above. He's doing valuable vandal-fighting, but I'd like to see a slightly more civil tone than I see in some of those edits. I would support in two or three months if there are no recurrences; Mike Christie 22:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose constructive criticism: please remember to think twice before reverting as potential vandalism. -- Samir धर्म 06:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose. He is clearly a hard-working editor, and I would not oppose for making a mistake. Heck, not even a BIG mistake, if he owned up to it and learned from it (which he did in his comments). But I see a poor attitude toward new users to this project, which has an immeasurably larger negative impact than making a revert mistake. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Sorry, I know I've gotten a lot of good vandalism tips from you on #vandalism-en-wp, but at this point, given the concerns raised above, I feel it is best that your counter-vandalism actions be filtered through a current admin until you can demonstrate better judgement on how you would use the tools yourself. --Cyde Weys 01:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. O per Ral's diff -
    talk/email 06:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
31. Mild oppose. He is well intentioned, but I know the user on IRC. He is a little quick to make judgement calls on blocking to give to admins, when blocks aren't merited. I think, if given the tools, some unjust blocks could be made.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 14:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Unfortunate Oppose for his use of the F-bomb in an edit summary. A similar scenario was discussed in the recent RFA for HighwayCello (talk · contribs · count). --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 22:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. High edit count but 0 FA? :( -- Миборовский 23:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "FA"? o_O Ryūlóng 23:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Featured article. Miborovsky seems to be saying that only those with a Featured Article should be admins. :) Dlohcierekim 00:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh... Is it necessary that admins or people wanting to be an admin have or work on a featured article? Or is it just a really odd Support/Oppose criterion? Ryūlóng 00:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I have my opinion. I think you should judge for yourself. You might want to look at the conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Requirements_for_RfA. Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 04:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

34. Oppose per the comments above and the incidents reported by Jaranda (above) and Xyzzyplugh (below). These leave me with an uncomfortable feeling about providing this nominee with the extra tools. Agent 86 17:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Oppose per above complaints - assuming good faith is pretty important to Wikipedia, and it looks as though this user clobbered a newbie in the Emory University incident. - Bootstoots 22:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]