WIKIPEDIA:REQUESTS FOR ARBITRATION RYULONG EVIDENCE

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Mythdon

Ryulong uses block threats innapropriately

Ryulong has threatened to seek that I get blocked on a few occassions [1] [2] without any appropriate reasons given. He has also made these same threats to other users.

Ryulong blocks editors without leaving them a message

Ryulong has blocked users without leaving them a message [3] [4] [5] [6]. He even did so to another user indefinitely, emailuser blocked, and talk page editing disabled with insufficient need for it [7].

Ryulong's misuses of rollback (prior to the 2nd RfC)

Warnings

[8] (removed with reply of "bugger off")
[9]
[10]
[11]

Misuses

Continued abuse

Ryulong has continued to misuse rollback, as seen in this rollback. This was an unjust revert of a good faith edit. This is a questionable rollback. These all occurred after the RfC was closed. In fact, they all occurred after this case was opened.

Ryulong has also made other questionable rollbacks, as seen here and here.

Recently, I have found that Ryulong has made even more questionable rollbacks in which undo would be necessary. As seen in these diffs [18] [19] [20].

Noticeboard discussion

Prior to this case, there was a discussion on Wikipedia regarding Ryulong threatening to "seek" that I get blocked if I made another deletion nomination opposing his wishes. In addition, this disccision covered his misuse of rollback, his block of an IP address for one month for refusing to sign posts, etc.

Evidence presented by Hersfold

Ryulong's efforts to improve following the RfC

I will be emailing ArbCom copies of IRC logs where Ryulong has made efforts to discuss with me and others about actions he has sought to undertake shortly. Other evidence will likely come in time, but I have a headache and also spent a good deal of time looking through Ryulong's pending evidence as well. Hersfold ^(
t/
a/
c) 04:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Recall is entirely voluntary

According to WP:AOR, "administrators are free to change their recall criteria at any time, or to decline to be recalled despite having previously agreed to be open to recall." Adding or removing oneself to or from the recall category is entirely voluntary and cannot be held against an administrator, since it is on occasion for personal reasons an administrator would remove themselves. Hersfold ^(
t/
a/
c) 18:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Notifying users of potential blocks is commonplace

Users of any sort of standing at Wikipedia are able to leave such notices on user talk pages at will. These are standardized messages that simply state that continuing the conduct that led to the warning may result in administrative action. Most, probably over 95% of users, are in no way capable of implementing the block they are "threatening." Is this abuse of their editing rights? No. It should be no different for an administrator to make a similar statement. Ryulong has never directly threatened to block Mythdon or any other editor he has been involved in a dispute with himself. None of the diffs Tiptoety has provided can demonstrate this has, in fact, occurred. Informing editors of potential consequences of their actions is commonplace, and does not constitute administator abuse. Hersfold ^(
t/
a/
c) 02:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Tennis expert

Ryulong abused the trust of the community when he reneged on a promise made during his RFA to be open to recall

During his RFA, Ryulong promised several times to be open to recall, thereby persuading a number of on-the-fence editors to support his administratorship. He became an administrator on January 24, 2007. On January 27, 2007, he added himself to the category of administrators subject to recall. But he rescinded that action only 10 days later, on February 6, 2007, with the edit summary of "more trouble than it's worth". On July 12, 2007, he re-added himself to the category of administrators subject to recall, only to delete himself again without explanation on September 3, 2007. While no administrator can be forced to add himself to the list of recallable administrators, a candidate administrator who voluntarily commits to be subject to recall in an effort to persuade editors to support his candidacy abuses the trust of the community when he goes back on his commitment soon after his candidacy is judged successful. This is but one example of Ryulong's longstanding pattern of community abuse. He should be sanctioned appropriately. Tennis expert ( talk) 13:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC) reply

WP:AOR does not specifically address situations where a candidate administrator promised to be open to recall during his RFA, various contributors to the RFA specifically relied on that promise in deciding to support the RFA, and then once the RFA was closed, the new administrator immediately reneged on the promise without any explanation to the community. This is highly disruptive, dishonest, and unconstructive behavior. Tennis expert ( talk) 21:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC) The promise should be construed as a waiver of whatever right the candidate administrator has under WP:AOR to change his or her mind. Tennis expert ( talk) 07:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC) reply

When Ryulong was asked about why he removed himself the second time from the category of administrators subject to recall and about his abusive use of administrator tools, this is what he said on September 26, 2007: "Because it is both in my prerogative to include and exclude myself from such a category. I never was able to come up with a decent set of self-chosen criteria for the category, and with my heavier course load at school, I doubted that I would be doing as much on Wikipedia as I did when I first became an administrator and did edits over the summer. ... I do not plan on placing myself into the recall category again since - as I promised Krimpet - I will not be performing any more blocks as I had on CattleGirl and ILikePikachu. I will focus on image deletions, vandalism blocks, and obvious sockpuppetry cases (administrators can block without a checkuser if it's blatantly obvious). Because the recall process does not distinguish between mistakes learned from and simple controversial and necessary actions for Wikipedia, I do not feel that I should go through the recall process, or allow simply disgruntled people to make me want to leave this project entirely. ... It's not imperative that I be in the category. I've agreed to stop blocking first and asking questions later. ... Please do not bring this to RFAR. ... I admit what I did was wrong, and undid my actions. I unblocked, removed the autoblocks, undeleted, apologized, did whatever was necessary to ameliorate for my grievous error immediately after I saw it as such. I know what I did was wrong, and I won't be doing it again tonight, tomorrow, next week, next month, whenever. ... Honestly, all that will be solved now by going through recall or going through arbitration will be punishing me for a mistake I admit that I made and completely regret. ... If I do choose to put myself up available for recall, I'll have to come up with my own criteria, which frankly I don't have time to bother with concerning I'm a full time student. If I'm forced to go through arbitration for something (broken record) I now realize was wrong, I won't feel like working on this site anymore. I don't want to be another burnt out administrator, but I've had multiple occasions where I've felt like this project just sickens me, but I realize that something has to be fixed about it. There was no imperative to keep myself in the recall category for my entire tenure. It seems that for however long I had removed myself from it, no one felt the need to recall me. But now when its noticed, there's a sudden need to chastise me for it. Right now, I'd rather work on my exchange program essay rather than worry about Wikipedian politics." Tennis expert ( talk) 21:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC) reply

During content disputes, Ryulong several times has threatened to get another administrator to block an editor

Hersfold said, "Ryulong has never directly threatened to block Mythdon." Perhaps not, but he has on several occasions promised Mythdon that Ryulong would get another administrator to block Mythdon if the latter continued behaving in the manner Ryulong did not like. See, e.g., this and this. I see no substantive difference between a "direct" and "indirect" threat. Both are abusive and unbecoming of an administrator when engaged in content disputes. Tennis expert ( talk) 16:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Ryulong

Mythdon and Ryulong

Since December 2007, Mythdon and I have been in nearly weekly contact with each other. This first began as simple "This user is vandalizing, you should block him" or "What should be done about this?" sort of things. It then evolved into "Why do you do this?", "What do you think about this?", "I think you're an important editor of Power Rangers", "What does your name mean?", etc. After a while, these sorts of questions and messages from him got entirely too annoying, and I began removing them from my talk page completely. He also began inquiring as to whether I am the user named Ryulong on Youtube, which I told him, among other things, was none of his business. Since then, he also began putting several articles up for deletion, including one that was done twice, both times where sourcing would have been easy to find, and the first time was just to try and suggest the article be renamed.

Given fifteen months of "working" with Mythdon, it is plainly understandable that my patience in dealing with him, his editing practicies, his logical fallacies, his circular discussion tactics, his rules lawyering, his strict adherance to any Wikipedia policy, and his non sequiturs would clearly be gone. Below, I've collected 62 different instances of his conversations with me on my talk page, his comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu (a WikiProject where his main goal has been to delete anything he personally cannot find sources he deems reliable), and one particular discussion at Talk:Power Rangers: Jungle Fury where he spent a year requesting that the talk page get archived. If necessary, I can try to organize the links, or narrow the list down to less than 62.

As an aside, this is indicative of the behavior first exhibited by Mythdon towards me at the beginning of his editing practices.-01:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

As an additional aside, this content is indicative of how Mythdon's strict interpretations of policies is harmful.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 03:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Personal improvement since the onset of the RFC and the RFAR

Once I realized that the RFC had more support than I thought it would, I began to modify my editing practices, which is what RFCs on users are generally for. In the last 3 weeks (which I go back through my article edits) I have made a total of 25 rollbacks out of 500 edits to articles. I've been using the undo button more and adding an edit summary. And even with the small amount of blocks I've been making, they are within policy. Possibly the harshest thing I have said to anyone is this after it came up in a chat, but I subsequently redacted my statement after I was advised it was worse than I thought it was (the statement was added back onto the talk page at some point by the user).

The evidence of absence is really difficult to prove much of anything with, but I have made an effort to change my editing practices and administrative practices to the extent that the RFC was set out to do.

Synergy's involvement

Prior to the RFC, I had absolutely zero contact with Synergy (as far as I can tell). However, his entire involvement at the RFC prior to my subsequent reassessment of its goal was to start a petition to open up this arbitration case. And despite my attempts to improve during the time the RFC was open, this case was filed merely by his decision to do so once his summary was endorsed. The RFC was also closed by Tiptoety 12 mintues after the case was proposed to the committee, giving me barely any time to show improvement, other than in the above.

Evidence presented by Tiptoety

This is about Ryulong

For whatever reason this case is slowing moving towards needing to be renamed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mythdon. While I can understand the need to point out other parties involvement and possible baiting issues I have yet to see anything Mythdon has done to justify Ryulong's misuses of his administrative tools. I have had multiple run ins with users whom I will openly admit I have "issues" with, but instead of stepping to their level, I either ignore them or ask for another administrator to assist me in dealing with the user in question. Instead Ryulong threatens Mythdon with a block, and continues to be aggressive. Overall, what I am getting at here is that Mythdon does not control what Ryulong does, and Ryulong and Ryulong alone is responsible for his actions especially pertaining to his use of tools.

This is long term

Since as far back as 2006 Ryulong has struggled with the use of rollback (via other tools such as WP:TW), and after reverting this edit, he was left with a note from Jimbo Wales asking for clarification on the matter. This has been ongoing since then and became a larger issue once he was granted the tools and administrative rollback. Some examples from as far back as last November include: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] (others available upon request). As of recent the misuses/abuse has become larger, and have resulted in multiple warnings from myself and other users. Those incidents include: this revert of Mythdon (clearly a content dispute) which was later met by this reply from Ryulong, stating "Clearly I don't care". Another revert of Mythdon (clearly a content dispute). This revert of an IP (non-vandalism addition). This rollback of a warning directed at Ryulong in regards to his misuse of the rollback tool. And this rollback of an IP making non-vandalism edits. While Ryulong was performing some of the above actions he was repeatedly asked to stop and use tools that would allow him to create a edit summary [30], [31], [32]. Since the filing of the second RFC Ryulong has made these questionable reverts: [33], [34], and [35]. To me that shows a unwilling attitude to change. While rollback has been a large concern, so has blocking. As stated in Ryulong's third RFA many users had concerns about Ryulongs potential misuse of his soon to be granted tools (specificaly being too harsh with blocking), and unfortunately those concerns became a reality with such recent blocks as: a one month long block on a IP whom had never been blocked prior, A one month block placed upon a inactive (at the time of the block) IP, A blocked placed upon a editor whom Ryulong was in a dispute with (please see this thread for more information on that one), An IP blocked for one month for failing to sign their posts (later overturned), a block placed on a editor whom Ryulong was involved in editing with, A user blocked with email disabled and talk page editing disabled and no reason for blocking was given. Also in addition to the block threat towards Mythdon outlined above, Ryulong threatened to block an editor whom he had a editing dispute with. On a side note I would also like to note this where Ryulong engaged in an edit war, and then goes on to "warn" or issue a block warning towards the other party he is warring with. [36]

Edits during this case

In an attempt to improve, I have noticed that Ryulong has moved away from the rollback button and more towards the undo button. While that is a step in the right direction, the undo button is useless (when used to revert content) if not accompanied by a helpful edit summary. Recently I noticed this undo by Ryulong of a long standing editor on a article that Ryulong contributes to heavily. While Ryulong did not use rollback, he failed to provide a edit summary, which is really the basis for the rollback concerns.

Ryulong, just recently involved himself in a edit war with Mythdon. Please see [37]. Tiptoety ^talk 05:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

IRC

I had not even thought to mention the numerous times Ryulong has requested I take administrative action for him on IRC. While I do not have logs to provide ArbCom, I can say that there are at least a few occasions where Ryulong has requested I take a look at a difficult situation he was involved in. And, one specific situation where he asked me to take administrative action against Mythdon (to which I declined).

Evidence presented by B

Ryulong's RFA

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryulong 3 was closed as successful by Raul654 [38] despite a 123-55 (69%) headcount. This controversial close was discussed at WT:RFA ( link to archived discussion). -- B ( talk) 21:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Ottava Rima

Long term blocking problems

I will keep this short and to the point - Ryulong has been a problematic admin for a long time. This has two concerns to me. One of them was Ryulong's blocking and his blatant acknowledgment of how he blocks and deals with blocks. I was blocked while trying to preserve the language of the WP:NLT against a massive change without consensus (langauge that SWATJester and thebainer later agreed with me as being inappropriate and contradictory to the original intent). I tried to talk to Ryulong and he didn't respond on my talk page. His friend Sandstein reviewed the unblock and said to deal with the block. I emailed him once. I was in email contact (unsolicited) with other admin. Ryulong found out about that and reacted. Thus, we have reblocking with summaries "User continues to utilize e-mail to question block, reblocking with e-mail blocked and resetting block length" and "Edit warring, repeated e-mails to various administrators due to block and protection; resetting". These were not overturned by those I was emailing with because they did not want to get into a wheel war, especially with Sandstein and others already making it clear that they wanted the extra block to stick. Not only did Ryulong refuse to talk, he blocked based on what the unblocking guidelines state that you are supposed to do - contact the blocking admin and discuss the issue. Ottava Rima ( talk) 06:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Sjakkalle

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Provocative close of AFD without considering consensus

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers (4th nomination) was closed by Ryulong as a "delete". Without getting into details over what the head count was, Ryulong's closing statement was:

"Really. A "list of bow tie wearers." Just because information is sourced does not mean that it is discriminate. And this is what I'll say at the inevitable DRV, too."

The rationale is inappropriate because

It failed to take into account the opinions presented in the debate.
Instead, it just formed Ryulong's personal opinion, and presented no evidence or arguments to support it.
"And this is what I'll say at the inevitable DRV, too" is an arrogant and disrespectful dare to the community.

That the delete closure was in spite of the lack of consensus is made clear by this post where Ryulong says "There was no real consensus either way". Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by JPG-GR

Mythdon and the monitoring of Admins' use of Rollback

I'm not going to provide (read: search for) diffs showing that Mythdon has monitored rollbacks performed by Ryulong and, when he feels they are against policy, notified him as such (as those diffs are likely already mentioned above). However, I am going to point out that Mythdon has (within the last week), taken to monitoring the rollbacks of other administrators and, when he feels they are against policy, taken to notifying them as such.

Do note that in the first dif provided, Mythdon was "just searching through recent changes to look for rollbacks." I am not sure why any user would be "looking for rollbacks," but I am curious as to why.

EDIT: Another instance: User:Bearcat 23:51, April 13, 2009 EDIT 2: User:Daedalus969 18:22, April 14, 2009

Evidence received by FayssalF

I've just received privately some information in relation to Ryulong's IRC activities involving requests of a few Wikipedia administrative actions which can be deemed questionable. The information was received from MBisanz and Risker (both of them are recused now).

Evidence received from user:MBisanz

Details

On early April 2009, Ryulong approached MBisanz on IRC to request a block of Mythdon. MBisanz declined the request. According to MBisanz, Ryulong had also been requesting blocks of other users and IPs from him and other administrators.
Ryulong, again, approached MBisanz last week to inform him that he had found out Mythdon's real life identity through a Youtube page. According to the same information, a couple hours later an IP from the same US State as Ryulong harassed Mythdon calling him a 'little kid'. MBisanz says he confronted Ryulong and he denied socking, blaming his University's geolocation for the similarity.

Evidence received from user:Risker

Details

On late February, and always on IRC, Ryulong approached Risker to request a move protect of GReeeeN. The request was denied. The ArbCom has a copy of the IRC log.

Evidence presented by user:DougsTech

Page deletion and protection abuse

Ryulong has repeatedly deleted subpages of mine, then protected them where I cannot create them back. He deleted my monobook.js file with the summary "G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup". When I recreated it, he deleted it again with the same reason. He then protected it with the summary "abuse of .js". There was no prior consensus for these actions, or policy cited. He did not create any of these files, and they were not copyright to him. He simply copy-pasted them from elsewhere, which is what I attempted to do. He simply did not like what I did, and decided to abuse his tools to stop me.

He has also deleted my monobook.css file with the summary "Copy of my monobook.css file; abuse of monobook by DougsTech". He protected it where I could not create it back. There is no policy stating that monobook files are not public, and they cannot be copied. There are even pages which share these scripts for the community.

He too deleted my huggle.css file and protected it where I could not create it back with the summary "Abuse of Huggle". Again, no prior consensus or policy cited.

He is making is own judgment and causing adverse actions for the community by doing things like this. I was unable to contribute with huggle or my scripts once he had them disabled.

Links: 1 2 3

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by Mythdon

Ryulong uses block threats innapropriately

Ryulong blocks editors without leaving them a message

Ryulong's misuses of rollback (prior to the 2nd RfC)

Continued abuse

Noticeboard discussion

Evidence presented by Hersfold

Ryulong's efforts to improve following the RfC

Recall is entirely voluntary

Notifying users of potential blocks is commonplace

Evidence presented by Tennis expert

Ryulong abused the trust of the community when he reneged on a promise made during his RFA to be open to recall

During content disputes, Ryulong several times has threatened to get another administrator to block an editor

Evidence presented by Ryulong

Mythdon and Ryulong

Personal improvement since the onset of the RFC and the RFAR

Synergy's involvement

Evidence presented by Tiptoety

This is about Ryulong

This is long term

Edits during this case

IRC

Evidence presented by B

Ryulong's RFA

Evidence presented by Ottava Rima

Long term blocking problems

Evidence presented by Sjakkalle

Provocative close of AFD without considering consensus

Evidence presented by JPG-GR

Mythdon and the monitoring of Admins' use of Rollback

Evidence received by FayssalF

Evidence received from user:MBisanz

Evidence received from user:Risker

Evidence presented by user:DougsTech

Page deletion and protection abuse

Evidence presented by {your user name}

{Write your assertion here}

{Write your assertion here}

Evidence presented by Mythdon

Ryulong uses block threats innapropriately

Ryulong blocks editors without leaving them a message

Ryulong's misuses of rollback (prior to the 2nd RfC)

Continued abuse

Noticeboard discussion

Evidence presented by Hersfold

Ryulong's efforts to improve following the RfC

Recall is entirely voluntary

Notifying users of potential blocks is commonplace

Evidence presented by Tennis expert

Ryulong abused the trust of the community when he reneged on a promise made during his RFA to be open to recall

During content disputes, Ryulong several times has threatened to get another administrator to block an editor

Evidence presented by Ryulong

Mythdon and Ryulong

Personal improvement since the onset of the RFC and the RFAR

Synergy's involvement

Evidence presented by Tiptoety

This is about Ryulong

This is long term

Edits during this case

IRC

Evidence presented by B

Ryulong's RFA

Evidence presented by Ottava Rima

Long term blocking problems

Evidence presented by Sjakkalle

Provocative close of AFD without considering consensus

Evidence presented by JPG-GR

Mythdon and the monitoring of Admins' use of Rollback

Evidence received by FayssalF

Evidence received from user:MBisanz

Evidence received from user:Risker

Evidence presented by user:DougsTech

Page deletion and protection abuse

Evidence presented by {your user name}

{Write your assertion here}

{Write your assertion here}

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook