Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ryulong

Outside view

Regarding the comment that Ryulong just needs to be remided to avoid the heavy trigger, I think that most of the diff's provided in the introductory discussion are exactly that - reminders to be civil, and thoughtful. When bored I read the various admin notice boards and Ryulong is up there with someone complaining that he jumped the gun, was uncivil, full of personal attacks, high handed, and rude that I recognize the name without any sort of involvement with this user. Now, undoubtedly the bulk of this is whinning by those who needed to be blocked, but enough of it seems to be simple arrogant rudeness that a simple reminder is not enough. --Rocksanddirt 21:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC is more than a simple reminder. It's appropriate to give Ryulong a chance to respond to the issues raised here; in fact, the point of this exercise is to get community feedback on an admin's actions and give them a chance to fix any problem areas. MastCell ^Talk 18:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. From the comments on the Rfc pages, people seem to have been reminding him of the communcations expectations of admins and now they suggest that he needs a more formal reminding of expectations of admins. It is not a simple reminder, and I don't think anyone is treating that way. Hopefully, this will be the end of it. What is your expectation? --Rocksanddirt 22:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Ryulong re. Xterra1's block history

Have to say, Xterra1's block log speaks volumes. He was blocked, as you say, mistakenly. Fair enough, I guess. But you were decidedly grudging about an apology afterwards (and in fairness, he must have been pissed at what happened) and when he was unblocked by someone else, you re-blocked him less than a day later for 'harassment'. Now, it may not have been the case, but the perception this projects is that you indef'd him first, he was unblock and then hours later, you were to re-indef him in what looks a whole lot like a fit of pique. Like you wanted to get him anyway. I'm sure this wasn't the case, but .... this may be how it has been perceived. He was unblocked minutes later by another admin as a "ridiculous block" which, in honesty, it was. I was ready to unblock, too, only someone else got in before me. - Alison ☺ 03:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His second block was because he was actively harassing me for an apology (I would have just preferred that I never come in contact with Xterra1, again). After I initially blocked him, I realized that he was not who I thought he was, and simply said to myself "If he requests an unblock, I would not fight it" and the simple parting of ways. I agree that my second block was out of line, and I should not have done it, and I apologized to him for having blocked him.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had you apologised in the first place for your mistaken block, this wouldn't have happened. The guy felt hurt, as if an injustice had been done to him (because it had). That's the cue to apologise unreservedly for blocking him, and then moving on. We all make mistakes & none of us are perfect. I've had to apologise, too; it's part of the job. Instead, you kept turning your back on him, and this made him more annoyed. It also made you look seriously arrogant and above the law. Once again, this is just the perception but can you see my point here? - Alison ☺ 04:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I realized that he was not who I thought he was" - around about there, you should have immediately unblocked him rather than waiting for him to either request it or leave in disgust. It's that simple. If you make an error like that, and realise it, the thing to do is not to walk away from it but to correct the wrong - Alison ☺ 07:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was still not very sure at the time, but yes, I should have immediately unblocked in that case.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Postlewaite's comment

A note, Ryan Postlewaite made a point of emphasizing that 4 warnings are required before blocking. This is most certainly incorrect, is there an alternative interpretation of what he wrote that I'm missing? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chairboy, that's exactly what I meant. A problem here is that some users believe disruptive users must be given the four warnings before an admin can block them - this is completely untrue, and Ryulong often blocks without the 4 warnings being given when a user is clearly up to no good. I was being a little sarcastic. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Limitations of the medium mean sarcasm is often poorly communicated. You may want to re-read your statement on the RfC with this in mind. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-read it and it's quite clearly saracasm. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I must just be dumb, because I didn't see it. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd... in online media, sarcasm is usually really helpful. :) MastCell ^Talk 18:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like WP:SARCASM generally, but it doesn't come through well in short bursts of plain text, in my experience of the internets. Though I did read RP's comments that way. --Rocksanddirt 22:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General question

I notice a few users have endorsed multiple summaries on this page. Is that okay to do? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Mackensen (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, thanks for the reply. There are certain aspects of Wikipedia that I'm still learning. :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My protected titles lists

My protected title lists User:Ryulong/PTL, User:Ryulong/YGOPTL, and User:Ryulong/PKMNPTL were created because the items listed there are too sensitive to be put on the private lists (user talk pages created by sockpuppets that are not proper), are too many pages solely created and editted by sockpuppets (several hundred fair use images) that would otherwise clutter the central pages and make them impossible to use due to the transclusion limit, pages that I know should not exist (I keep rumors on my main list that I know do not exist), and for some time, an RFC under my name due to sockpuppetry early in my adminship. That was meant to be a temporary measure, but I forgot to remove it from the list, until it was brought up to me later. Honestly, if someone wants to create Image:Yugioh75.jpg, I can be contacted. If Keisatsu Sentai Sapiranger turns out to be a new show next year, then I'll unsalt it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's some discussion of this at WT:PT. Almost all of the titles on your list should never be articles, but at least in the case of the RfC it pointed up a problem, which is the lack of transparency and what could be construed as using administrative powers to silence potentially valid criticism. The problem is that some potentially appropriate articles are being salted in a non-transparent manner, or are being salted pre-emptively. MastCell ^Talk 22:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it certainly wouldn't preclude the creation of WP:RFC/Ryulong 2. Just a note. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor would it have precluded the creation of an RFC earlier this year (which was deleted because I never had a chance to respond to the accusations, and I cannot remember what title it was under).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you do understand that deleting and salting your own RfC, using an unorthodox private salt page, and leaving it salted for 4 months looks like a misuse of administrative powers? All of our dispute resolution pathways use RfC for user-conduct and administrative concerns. To tell people to follow WP:DR and at the same time make it difficult or impossible (depending on their wiki-savvy) to open an RfC is not a good approach. MastCell ^Talk 23:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - sorry, I didn't mean to browbeat you about it. And I appreciate that you un-salted it so promptly when I brought it up. MastCell ^Talk 23:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Ionas68224

It has come to my attention that Ionas68224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a certain user 2147 at a well known site critical of Wikipedia, where he has been fitting in quite well. He also seems to want me to be desysopped for no reason other than his own ideas at said site.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's been blocked by MastCell for one week for trolling this RfC and linking to that site. Acalamari 22:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of history

My comments on the RfC itself are getting too involved to continue there, so I'm making a brief history there, while letting the other comments stand so I'm not redacting important information. My history on Wikipedia under this particular IP is not vast, but I've made significant contributions through several years, uninterested in making a username and just using whatever IP the ISP assigns. Until this incident, I haven't had any problems with Ryulong, in fact I've never had any contact with him, and my edits haven't broken any rules. I came across a citation regarding "BJ" from Mash, a show I like, that was very interesting, stating in a RS that he "scrubbed in on" an actual surgery (How cool is that?). So I posted that citation, quoting it directly, and made some other minor edits on the article so that the reference would show. It was removed for BLP, which made no sense to me because it shouldn't have been a concern since it wasn't derogatory, and the quote, as I said, was directly from the source, so I replaced it with an edit comment stating same. Another editor reworded the section to what he said were more recent sources that could be found on the Internet more readily (i.e., without having to pay for the article), and I didn't object, and went about my business. The fact that more sources were found on the same subject proves that mine was a RS and acceptable for the article because the same information was found in all three; the new edits merely expounded on the facts. So, even the objection to the edit was invalid.

I later found out that I had been accused of being a sockpuppet of a banned user (that used the citation on the article previously, but who had some sort of agenda that included commentary that was not found in my edits on the article). One of the other people on my IP responded already by this point, stating on ANI that no one on this IP was the banned user, and the fact that the editing was completely different. It was then pointed out on ANI by the accuser that the IP was from a different part of the world. So considering the matter resolved, I was astonished to find out that the IP had been blocked for a week, after that conversation, affecting everyone on it! This started the process of trying to get everyone unblocked, then trying to get a simple apology for the wrongful block that inconvenienced us all. I'm not calling for a de-sysop, but I do think this behaviour should be addressed. What I most want is what I wanted from the beginning, an acknowledgment by Ryulong that he was wrong, and an apology. 121.208.181.37 10:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]