I would like to start by saying that it is truly unfortunate that it has come to this, but I feel that all other methods of communication and dispute resolution has failed.
Ryulong has been a active administrator on Wikipedia, and during his time here has helped the project significantly. Unfortunately, he has failed to take constructive criticism from the community at large and has continued to use his administrative tools in a disruptive and at times abusive way. While the second request for comment was in progress, Ryulong has continued to be abrasive, and threatens to use his tools against a user whom he is involved in a dispute with (the founding reason the RfC was filed). I urge the committee to look at all the diffs provided in the second RfC to completely understand the long term patter of disruption.
I would also like to note that in opening the second RfC I hoped that Ryulong would change his behavior and gave him many opportunities, but judging by his most recent actions he has not taken them. I would also like to note that I added the ANI diff to the above list of prior attempts at dispute resolution.
I am going to have to disagree with you here Hersfold, there are more issues than just that one block threat that occurred during the second RfC including this block which is a first time block of one week, on a IP editor whom is editing the same subjects as Ryulong. I would also like to not some other questionable rollbacks that were preformed during the RfC, a large removal of non-vandalism content, another removal of non-vandalism content, a rollback of a IP whom made some wikimark up edits (non-vandalism), and rolling back a clearly good faith edit. He also recently threatened to block an IP whom was changing the heading colors on a article that he edits on a regular basis. Tiptoety talk 14:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
First let me start by saying that the result of the RfC was to come here as the issues being addressed were not being fixed, so there is really no "evidence" of abuse since the RfC...but there is evidence of it during the RfC (or after it was filed). I would also like to note that the RfC was doomed from the start as stated that he was not willing to change his actions. In regards to your request for evidence of further issues during or after the RfC I ask you to look at the diffs provided in the section above (the reply to Hersfold). Tiptoety talk 19:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
He is no longer open to recall, so that point is moot. If you wish to know why, you can ask him but I am not sure it is relevant. Tiptoety talk 04:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes from the 16th to the 17th Ryulong engaged in a edit war ( page history). Also all those diffs cited in the above section directed towards Hersfold are all after the RfC were filled. Please see that section, as I have also asked in multiple other sections. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 03:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I am ambivalent towards Ryulong and his admin work. On the one hand, he is an all-around excellent maintenance worker which the site highly values. But on the other, I have found some of his comments to have a very "as an admin my judgment is naturally sound" feel to them. Master&Expert ( Talk) 04:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Ryulong has been an admin since early 2007. If I hadn't known this, I would have assumed he was relatively inexperienced, due to the number of abusive and other problematic actions he has done with admin rights. Lots of significant concerns were raised on his successful RFA, that passed with an unusually low percentage. Ryulong says he is trying to work on issues raised from the RFCs. This is not acceptable, when one has never really been suited for adminship. Bluntly, if he had never been an admin, and was to request now, he'd fail dismally. The problem here is that there has been a significant problem for a long, long time. Admins need to always have trust and respect from the community, and Ryulong lacks both these things, and has done for a while. His continuation as an admin is generally a net negative in my opinion. We should refrain from giving people, especially admins, chance after chance after chance to "work on issues" and to "redeem themselves". Why? Because there should never be any issues to work on or to redeem.
Hersfolds statements really concern me. If Ryulong has been getting advice from others, and still shows a pattern of abusive use of tools, such that experienced users feel the need to do something; I think there is something for the committee to review. After the first RfC on Ryulong, he seemed to take a lot of the communities concerns to heart. At that one, there were a number of other admins, who were very dismissive of the attempt to reign in one of their own. It was only after numerous users pointed to specific problems, and requested not deadmining (though some did), but simply a change in his behavior that obstruction slowed and the concerns could be clearly presented to Ryulong. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 19:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay I spotted this recently. I've not dealt with Ryulong that I can remember of myself but in his 3rd RFA which he passed from that to become administrator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ryulong he said he would be open for recall.
Here's a quote:
---
“ |
|
” |
---
Basically, arbitrations are very time consuming and lengthy. It often has people getting all angry at each other and results in some people getting punished, sanctioned, etc. The administrators open to recall is a there to make things more efficient. Why not just use that to handle things instead? I think it would save a lot of time. Are you ready for IPv6? ( talk) 02:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Ooops I typed the URL wrong. I went to the first RFA and not the third. The third was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ryulong_3 and the quote I was looking for was
---
“ |
|
” |
---
Are you ready for IPv6? ( talk) 03:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I want to point out a few things before this is opened/rejected/whatever; comprising of a note, an unusual comment/critique, and another comment.
The RfC was closed by Tiptoety, and I added it to the archives with the understanding that it may be reopened only immediately following a decline of this request - should arbitrators deem it necessary opening the case, then there's no justification to turn back.
Beyond this, there's really only one other thing I believe I've commented on with respect to this - that Mythdon should voluntarily agree to stop interacting with or commenting on Ryulong. There was general agreement with this view by others, as suggested on the RfC's talk page. All that said, courtesy of what I call "modern technology" with respect to email access, when certain users, even if they are arbitrators, join forces with grudge-holders in allowing the needless escalation of matters (as opposed to dissolving them by joining the wider community chorus that says '...back off; find a more productive hobby that isn't so....'), I suppose it'd be too much to expect a decent understanding or feeling of care with respect to this sensitive issue. The justification for dissolving the issue and letting other issues arise without interference, far outweighs the justification for refusing to do so (which by contrast, has the effect of a nasty toxic chemical reaction of sorts - it'd be sad to see it blow up in anyones face). But I digress, and note the uneasy distinction (if any) between "a very hypothetical scenario" and "reality".
With the exception of this issue concerning interacting/commenting, the only other thing worth pointing out is two broad categories which should make 'what the decision ought to be' quite clear...but then again, I myself don't have a view on this dispute. :) Sometimes an RfC needs to move straight to arbitration, even where opened for a short time. But it is sometimes important to keep an RfC open, or to wait after an RfC is closed - the subject may make genuine (and I really do mean genuine) attempts to improve, yet may at any or all times, still put up fronts as if he/she will do little to nothing. That's all I have to say. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 13:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
This Request for Arbitration was long overdue. Whilst I respect much of the good work Ryulong has performed, his attitude for too long has been nothing short of a disgrace. The sheer arrogance and rudeness he has displayed in some of his comments, and his total contempt for other users "beneath" him lead me to feel that nothing short of a total revocation of his full administrator rights will be sufficient. Hopefully, such sanctions might enforce a more humbling attitude, and should such action prove to be effective, I would be all for a reinstatement once noticeable changes are observed. C.U.T.K.D T | C 09:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I am requesting clarification for the wording of the terms of my soon-to-be mentorship.
In term B of "Mythdon restricted and placed under mentorship", it states "Mythdon should consult and take guidance from the mentor when issues arise concerning their editing or behavior". I am confused as to who this is referring to. The confusion is is that the word "their" refers to multiple other people, but it's clear that in the other restriction(s), the word discusses me as evidenced by their wording. However, I am not certain as to what the word means in this term (term B). Here's the question: Does "their" in term B refer to issues regarding my editing/behavior or other editors editing/behavior?
I am also asking for clarification on the wording of term C. It states "During mentorship, Mythdon is restricted from making edits such as unnecessary questions and abusive warnings to users' talk pages if not approved by their mentor" - In regards to "abusive warnings", does this go for all warnings, or does it simply go for warnings (i.e. my past warnings to admins/rollbackers about their use of rollback) that were judged to be abusive? The word "abusive" raises questions, and did raise a similar questions here, but that doesn't clarify my question. As an unrelated note, while my next statement here would not deal with something that needs any clarification, if anyone ever asks, as a result of arbitrator FayssalF's statement "After all, you'll [Mythdon] be consulting with him before making any edit to anyone's talk page", besides my own talk page, I have made absolutely zero edits to user talk namespace since the closure of the case.
While you may find this request for clarification a bit ridiculous, please seriously consider clarifying.
If any other editor has additional questions regarding this or any other remedy, please do so. It may very well clarify something that I thought was some other way.
No, I have not found or attempted to find a mentor yet, in case an arbitrator asks me. If I do get assigned a mentor (which will most certainly likely happen), and if I edit during the mentorship, these are things I need to know before any interpretations are made. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 06:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to remind Risker and Newyorkbrad that before acting as arbitrators in this request, that they recused themselves from the relevant case voluntarily. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 06:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
In term D, it states:
While this term only covers comments about the user, I am unsure as to whether comments to the user apply as well. Does this also apply to interactions? I believe so. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 21:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
After the mentors appointment, in regards to "...may only comment after the appointment with his mentor's prior approval.", would this "approval" approve of all future comments to/about Ryulong without further approvals or would I have to gain approval for every single comment? My suspicions are leaning towards "...approval for every single comment". — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the first point, I hate to say it, but I told you so. :)
As you were. Stifle ( talk) 10:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I have additional questions regarding my mentorship ruling.
In regards to term A, it says:
In the recently closed Mattisse case, there is ruling of mentorship there as well stating that Matissee shall be assigned mentors by the committee within 15 days of that decision. But, also, unlike mine, there is a ruling here that directs Mattisse not to edit Wikipedia if the "plan" is not accomplished within the 15 day period without Committee permission. Because of that, I have this question; Since my month long time limit to find a mentor is up (it's been up since approximately June 24), am I prohibited from editing Wikipedia at all until the appointment or am I just prohibited from making edits that require the mentor approval?
In regards to term B, it says:
I am having a hard time understanding the beginning sentence of that term "Mythdon should consult and take guidance from the mentor when issues arise concerning their editing or behavior". I do not know what is being meant by "consult". Does it mean "consult your mentor when you're unsure of whether an edit is legitimate?" - My suspicion is "yes".
Since I'm not 100% sure as of this moment, I need further clarification on this case ruling. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 00:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
In response to: "Why have you not acquired a mentor? Have you had difficulty finding someone to agree? Were you unsure of where to look or how to approach the matter?" - To answer these first three questions, I'll respond to those all in the same answer; I intentionally have not found a mentor yet. The first reason is because I don't feel like doing so, and the other is because I'm not interested in having a mentor.
In response to: "...what areas do you feel you need the most guidance in?" - I don't feel like I need any guidance in any area. I feel that I've worked functional enough in the areas I've worked in before the remedy was put in place. I don't think I need any guidance from a mentor.
In response to: "What sort of advice would be most helpful for you?" - I don't think I need any advice. I think that I know how, what, where, and when to do something without advice from a mentor. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 05:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
In regards to term D "Mythdon shall not comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about Ryulong on any page in Wikipedia until a mentor is appointed and may only comment after the appointment with his mentor's prior approval.", am I allowed to revert any post Ryulong makes on my talk page? Since the case, I have either reverted or ignored any post he's made on my talk page, but I think it's about time this gets clarified.
During the mentorship, can the committee pass a motion to place a site ban on me for a period of time through a simple majority vote if the committee has any reason to believe it is the only approach? — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 00:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The answers to your question is here. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 05:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
In response to the motion.
In response to; "This includes, but is not limited to, incivility, edit warring and failing to appropriately pursue dispute resolution." - Could an arbitrator please clarify why "incivility" is part of this probation? I don't engage in incivility.
In response to; "Any uninvolved administrator may utilize discretionary sanctions, including topic bans and blocks, to enforce this probation." - I'm not really planning on editing the pages during the probation. After all, since before the mentorship remedy finished voting, I have been making plans not to edit Wikipedia during the one year period. If this probation motion doesn't pass, and if a mentor is appointed, I will consider not editing for the period. I do not feel that I should edit if such a situation were to occur. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 20:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
In second response to; "This includes, but is not limited to, incivility, edit warring and failing to appropriately pursue dispute resolution." - And what else? — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 20:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, I would to ask what the committee will do with term (C); "During mentorship, Mythdon is restricted from making edits such as unnecessary questions and abusive warnings to users' talk pages if not approved by their mentor. The mentor will be asked to assist them in understanding community practice to a sufficient level that continued sanctions will not be necessary." - What will happen to this with the motion? Will I still be prohibited from making these edits? What will happen? — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 01:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
What would count as "abusive warnings to users' talk pages"? — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 17:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Could you please clarify what the motion means by "better communication skills"? — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 18:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I did not say that the discussion ended. All I said was that a few comments were made to the discussion since then, and asked that if the discussion were to end, would dispute resolution still be necessary? It's a simple question. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
In response to this addendum.
First let me respond to: "I asked him in the past if he even watched the shows, and he replied that he did not" - Only twice have I made any reference to whether or not I've watched the shows. Here's the first example when I say "Well, I haven't seen the show either" as part of the statement in that diff. "The show" refers to Power Rangers: RPM in this statement. Secondly, in February 2009, Ryulong asked me if I watched Power Rangers: Mystic Force to make a judgment of a merge proposal and I told him that I did.
More responses may come soon. Thanks. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 00:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
In response to "Seeing as he is not bringing his issues to the attention of WP:TOKU, banning him from editing these pages will be a much more effective way to curb his behavior" - The reason I haven't done this lately is due to mentorship term (D); "Mythdon shall not comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about Ryulong on any page in Wikipedia until a mentor is appointed and may only comment after the appointment with his mentor's prior approval.". This restriction only mentions commenting about, but former arbitrator Kirill Lokshin clarified in June 2009 that I was also restricted from making any comment to Ryulong as well, clarification here. At WT:TOKU and its archives of 2008, you'll see many comments of Ryulong replying to more than 95% of my comments on talk pages. Please take the May 24, 2009-onward comments to me more seriously. Also, take a look at Talk:Power Rangers, where Ryulong responds to a post I make after May 24, 2009 (see here). — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I've only had a few things to say to Mythdon since the close of the case on his user talk. The first one was removed without comment, the second and third were removed referring to the arbitration proceedings. I know that he's restricted from commenting about me but I really doubt he's restricted from communicating with me entirely. There is no way he and I can constructively contribute in the same topic area if he continues to ignore my statements after I have to clean up after him being overly strict with content policies, simply being entirely unknowledgable in the topic area, or treating aspects of the project more bureaucratically than they should be.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 04:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I would like the arbitration committee to be aware of this discussion on Mythdon's user talk with three other users concerning his strict application and reading of various policies. It seems that he has moved onto other topic areas with his requests for every sentence to be referenced and whatever cannot be referenced (sans common sense or other pages) should be deleted.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 21:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
In the past several hours after seeing this edit, I've seen Mythdon, as usual, removing words, statements, or entire paragraphs of content on Power Rangers and other related pages without bringing anything up for discussion. As I cannot (apparently) leave him any sort of message concerning issues I have with his editing practices, I've been advised to append my statement here. Diffs are included below (in no particular order).
Everything in these are supported by the fictional media themselves. I asked him in the past if he even watched the shows, and he replied that he did not. I cannot understand why he continues to edit in this topic area if he does not even bother to follow the media in any form. He cannot contribute constructively in this topic area (anything under the umbrella of WP:TOKU), and frankly a topic ban would be much more worthwhile (in my opinion) rather than sticking him under various new restrictions that he will take the verbatim reading, as has shown in his knowledge of various Wikipedia policies. I understand the pages are not perfect, but there's no way that Mythdon has ever improved them.
Long before the arbitration case was filed, I've wanted to get Mythdon banned from the topic area, but I could never initiate the ban (or discussion) because of my deep involvement in dealing with Mythdon. Seeing as he is not bringing his issues to the attention of WP:TOKU, banning him from editing these pages will be a much more effective way to curb his behavior.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 00:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Really? I want a one sentence answer from him and he won't do anything because of how he's interpreting the restrictions placed on him.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 06:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
And I won't get an answer. Even when I didn't even put the question on the page, he undid my null edit. This is getting fucking ridiculous.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 06:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry, now it is fucking ridiculous.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 07:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Mythdon restricted and placed under mentorship is vacated and replaced with the following:
Mythdon is placed under conduct probation for one year, in relation to WikiProject Tokusatsu and Ryulong, broadly construed. This includes, but is not limited to, incivility, edit warring and failing to appropriately pursue dispute resolution.
Any uninvolved administrator may utilize discretionary sanctions, including topic bans and blocks, to enforce this probation. Acting administrators are encouraged to apply sanctions tailored to the circumstances and context. For the purposes of enforcing this measure, any administrator approached directly by Ryulong for enforcement should not act directly. In such a situation, raise both Ryulong's and Mythdon's conduct in normal venues for review.
As noted in a portion quoted by Mythdon, a demonstrated inability to work with a mentor may result in other sanctions. Mythdon's response to my questions illustrates that he is unwilling to accept the guidance and advice of a mentor. Rather than impose a broad topic ban that would severely impede his ability to contribute to the project, I propose this measure. It is explicitly intended to cover a broad range of behavior within the specific areas of dispute. It authorizes and encourages administrators to use their discretion to address the specific situation and context. The closing portion regarding Ryulong is a modification of the "any uninvolved admin" clause, based on the context of the arbitration case. This should permit Mythdon to continue contributing, while providing the project administrators with the tools to resolve any issues quickly and appropriately. -- Vassyana ( talk) 16:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Mythdon restricted and placed under mentorship is vacated and replaced with the following:
Mythdon is placed under conduct probation for one year, in relation to WikiProject Tokusatsu and Ryulong, broadly construed. This includes, but is not limited to, edit warring and failing to appropriately pursue dispute resolution and to show better communication skills. Mythdon will still be restricted from making edits such as unnecessary questions and abusive warnings to users' talk pages.
Any uninvolved administrator may utilize discretionary sanctions, including topic bans and blocks, to enforce this probation. Acting administrators are encouraged to apply sanctions tailored to the circumstances and context. For the purposes of enforcing this measure, any administrator approached directly by Ryulong for enforcement should not act directly. In such a situation, raise both Ryulong's and Mythdon's conduct in normal venues for review.
This alternative motion addresses Mythdon's response and questions concerning the above motion. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I am requesting an amendment to "Ryulong admonished" and the enforcement "Ryulong and users' identity seeking".
Taking a good look at the findings and evidence, there is no finding or evidence that Ryulong was seeking any users identity. Finding "Ryulong discussing the identity of Mythdon" makes no mention of identity seeking, but mentions identity discussion, if anything.
I think it is totally unjust to make a remedy on something that isn't found to had been going on—Trying to solve what is not happening. This is one of those cases. Was there a finding or any actual evidence that Ryulong sought any user personal information? No. Sam Blacketer voted against this enforcement for exactly that reason. Therefore, I request that we terminate this enforcement, and modify the admonishment to only direct Ryulong to refrain from doing what he was found to do. Note that this is not based on my personal preferences, but based on what is necessary for the cases judgment. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 01:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I am pursuing this because there is no finding of fact or evidence that Ryulong was actually seeking my identity. Arbitration remedies are to ensure that problems don't recur, not to ensure a problem never starts. It is not whether I give him permission to seek my identity, but whether the arbitration remedies serve a purpose. These do not obviously serve any purpose other than, if anything, prevent problems that have never occurred. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 14:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
What I am suggesting is not to make the remedy unenforceable, but to make the remedy fair to the evidence and findings of fact. There is no evidence that Ryulong was identity seeking, which is exactly why I am here. I also have a question, one which should be at Requests for Clarification. Will Ryulong be banned if he violates "identifying personal information of Wikipedia users, and from disclosing that information to others"? I'm curious, because you make it sound so. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, actually, Ryulong does wish for this amendment, and even if he didn't want this to be amended, that doesn't change the fact that this amendment is needed. I will quote what he said here:
With that quoted, "sure why not" + "I didn't like this restriction" equals up to statement of desire for the amendment. If you still doubt his acceptance, please take it up with him on his talk page. -- Mythdon talk • contribs 23:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
In response to Carcharoth, sure why not. I didn't like this restriction or whatever because it was based on the one-off instance when Mythdon was going out of his way to contact me on other websites and I merely relayed the information to another user, which was blown out of proportion by another edit that I did not make.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 00:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
This is pretty straightforward. Although this is not a substantive change to the decision, the enforcement part of a remedy belongs in the enforcement section of a decision; except in the case of temporary injunctions. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 13:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
This becomes necessary to avoid the potential unnecessary confusion caused (and the repetition otherwise caused by amendment 1). Ncmvocalist ( talk) 13:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I was actually thinking about asking the Arbitration Committee to remove the mentorship enforcement myself. I, like Ncmvocalist, ask that the Arbitration Committee remove this enforcement as it is moot, and not enforcing anything, and can't be used without the mentorship remedy being in place. Arbitration Committee members, please pass a new motion in which this enforcement be removed. As for the conduct probation enforcement being in the "enforcement" section, I think that it should also be there, strictly for stylistic reasons. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 15:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Kay...— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 23:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I am here to request a fourth clarification on the Ryulong case.
After some thinking, I have found that, even after my long list of questions in the last clarification, that there are still things that have been left unanswered.
I have the following questions:
If I have any additional questions, I will post them in this statement, though I likely wont have any questions in the future, unless the Arbitration Committee decides to amend the case again as they did in the second and third clarification requests. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 03:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Initiated by — Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) at 08:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
For the past eight months I have been working on the encyclopedia portion of the project almost exclusively, working on articles, contributing to the manuals of style that I most often encounter, and trying not to cause a scale of the problems that I had encountered with administrative tools. Other than removal of rollback rights after a dispute with Mythdon prior to his ban from the project (I cannot find where the discussion that resulted in this took place) and a couple of 3RR blocks ( #1, #2) that were placed hours after the edit wars died (and were later lifted) I have done nothing that requires administrative action to prevent me from doing anything.
With the Twinkle rollback I have used the function to give reasons along with the rollback less than the vandalism tagging one (I have used it and then realized the edits were not meant to deliberately cause damage, but these are rare) and the undo button more to leave comments as to why I am reverting edits.
I will admit that my communications with Powergate92 ( talk · contribs) have been getting strained, but I doubt that the issues will escalate to what occurred between myself and Mythdon ( talk · contribs).
When I have the administrative tools back, I will use them for what they were intended: maintaining the project, dealing with speedy deletions, blocking vandalizing users, helping settle disputes that show up on ANI and the related boards, etc. I will not use administrative rollback in my primary topic area unless it is blatant vandalism (as a few long term problem users have been cropping up lately within it). I will not threaten to block as a scare tactic. I will convene with other administrators before I perform what may be controversial actions.
If it is requested, I will agree to a form of some period where I am watched to make sure I do not fall back on the methods I used in the past and I expect to be placed under scrutiny once more. I mean the best for this project and I would like to help out once more with the extra buttons available.
Is there some reason you can't use RfA? Jtrainor ( talk) 16:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
No view as to the merits of this particular appeal, but entirely supportive of Arbcom having the lesser power of temporary desysop as well as the power of permanent desysop. The implication of that being that "or by appeal to ArbCom no less than 6 months after the closure of the case." means that Ryulong has the right of appeal to Arbcom in this case. So Arbcom should resysop him if they feel that he has done what Arbcom wanted him to do last May when they desysopped him but gave him leave to appeal after 6 months.
For the future I would suggest that when doing temporary desysops Arbcom should make it clear whether the right of appeal is for a fresh look at the case, or for a resysopping based on particular changes in editing activity. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
If a good case can be made for returning Admin rights to this user, this case should be made to the community. Even if I were to concede that there may be reasons for Arbcom to restore adminship without a new RFA, that reason needs to be more than concern that the community would not support the RFA. If the user has avoided returning to RFA for this reason, than this proposed restoration could be seen as an attempt to over-rule community concern.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 18:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
From what I know of RfA, I doubt that Ryulong would be judged by the editors there solely on the reason his tools were removed. My opinion is that he should be judged in context of his arbcom case, as the community has already judged him worthy of the tools. RfA has changed, and if Ryulong had not committed the infractions he was found guilty of, he would still have the tools. Because of this, all of his editing skills and judgement should be considered acceptable except for those brought up in his arbcom case. The community should still have input on this decision, but RfA is not the correct venue from what I can see. Malinaccier ( talk) 02:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
While ArbCom certainly has the right to restore the sysop bit to Ryulong if they wish to do so, I feel it would be better in this case to require a new RFA. I think the sysop bit should only be restored in cases of clearly temporary desysoppings; this one wasn't temporary, but rather indefinite, until such time as ArbCom wishes to overturn it. Unless there are reasons to think the original desysopping was flawed, Ryulong's status should stand, and he should try to regain the tools through the usual process of gaining community consensus in an RFA. (Yes, RFA is unfortunately different from how it used to be - it seems a lot harsher these days - but that's not really relevant here.) Robofish ( talk) 18:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree 100% with WSC. This avenue for resysop was explicitly stated in the previous ruling, thus it is an option for resysopping. IMHO, it is up to the Committee to determine if time served justifies restoring the bit. The only way that an RfA should be required would be if ArbCOM didn't feel that his actions have changed or improved---eg refused to act in a manner previously indicated in their past statements. Should that happen, then ArbCOM refusal to act would almost definately hurt his chances at an RfA. As per WSC, I have not looked into the particulars of this case, so this is a general support of ArbCOM's rights and responsibilities as laid out in the initial motion.--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC) @Knight, I think your point is exactly why WSC and I worded our comments the way we did. Neither of us are taking a position related to the case in question, but rather upon the Committee's obligation to do so when the Committee made the option to appeal to them a possibility. R- was desyssopped at Committee behest, with the caveat that he could go through another RfA or apply to the committee. These were the options presented to him at the time. IMO, it is within his right to make this request, and the committees right to reinstate the tools. It is also appropriate for you to refer this to RfA, but I don't think the default should be that. IMHO, moving in and out of adminship should be easier than it is. That is the only way that aminship will ever live up to the monicker, no big deal. Sending cases back through RfA, does not make it easier, but harder.--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
There has been ongoing discussion about the ever-increasing standards applied to editors at RfA. For good or ill, these standards are the ones accepted by the community at this time. The level of scrutiny given to most editors in that process is likely much higher than that which could be given by the small number of ArbCom members who will render this decision, and applying that community standard is particularly appropriate in this case. Resysopping this editor will necessitate a higher level of monitoring than is the norm (as the editor concedes), and I believe that there is no reason to place that decision on so small a number of other editors, even ones given a high degree of trust. I am generally opposed to any resysopping without a new RfA, and specifically opposed to it in this instance.-- otherl left 15:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Initiated by — Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) at 02:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I would like these three aspects concerning the seeking of real life identities to be removed entirely from my injunction as they are in no way relevant to what had happened.
It has been two years since the injunctions against me were filed and these related entries are the ones I still have issues with. As I stated in my original whatever it was that the now banned user Mythdon was the instigator in this supposed "real life identity" searching. Prior to the ArbCom case, Mythdon went out of his way to bother me on my YouTube channel. I still have the incoming and outgoing messages Mythdon sent me via YouTube, asking if the YouTube user Ryulong was in fact me (which it is). The only thing I provided to MBisanz was a link to the profile Mythdon was using which happened to include his age at the time. I have never gone out of my way to seek out the real life identity of anyone, including Mythdon, and I find that these particular findings and injunctions against me are overly unnecessary and they make it appear I had done something which I never did. If necessary, I can provide the messages received through YouTube from 2008 in which Mythdon continued his harassment off site, unprovoked.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 02:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Initiated by — Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) at 12:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Lately, I have been the target of harassment by a slew of sockpuppets of editors who have been banned from this website, in some cases for years. Allegedly, these count as "users with whom [I am] in dispute". Is this correct? Considering how WP:SPI is chronically backlogged and as is evident banned users have all the free time in the world to continue their harassment campaigns, using the #wikipedia-en-spi channel or using IRC to contact an administrator who has been assisting me in on-site requests to notify them of new sockpuppets will solve these issues affecting the site as well as my ability to participate on this site without constant harassment.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 12:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Carcharoth: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dragonron (actually Wiki-star, with most of the previous investigation held under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zarbon and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zarbon because of Zarbon suffering harassment and impersonation) and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AS92813 (highly likely to be BuickCenturyDriver/ Don't Feed the Zords [both same operator], cases previously Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BuickCenturyDriver & Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Don't Feed the Zords).— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 04:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Nug's posting here is irrelevant and retaliatory to the content dispute currently under discussion at Talk:Soviet Union, as has been most of his behavior to me since I re-entered the discussion on that page for the past week, including his attempts to WP:boomerang the thread I started at WP:ANI and his piling onto discussions started by banned users' sockpuppets. The thread he points to at ANI, after he repeatedly tried to derail it, had an administrator arrive and note that the behavior of the user I was reporting was problematic. Sending a message to N-HH to inform him of renewed discussion that he was once a party to is not canvassing, nor is suggesting to him the possible venues in which to raise our problems with Nug's behavior on the article. And no, the "alleged harassment" has not ended. The fact that one banned user has been harassing someone for 8 years and another has returned a year after his last socks were shut down shows that both individuals who have harassed me in the past several weeks will continue to do so once they find the technical means to evade the blocks put in place, as they seem to be adept at.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 10:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Carcharoth: At this point I don't know if enforcing the ban counts as harassment when it comes to one of the users (see all the edits between protections [also for some reason he's violating copyright now]) but if something can be done about that, then by all means help me figure that out.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 13:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
"Regardless of the original merits of this sanction, five years later it does not appear to be serving a legitimate purpose in preventing disruption."
I am delighted to see such a common-sense statement on ArbCom, though the barn door is long locked on vacancy. That being said, I support the request and motion.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Carcharoth: See User talk:Callanecc/Archive 9#174.236.68.115, WP:ANI#Recent behavior of ryulong, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dragonron/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AS92813/Archive. And for the record, I also support the motion. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 03:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Ryulong's seems to have an apparent tendency to seek administrative intervention against perceived content opponents, for example this recent ANI thread titled " Nanshu's ad hominem attacks". I've lately come to his attention and this apparent attempt at canvasing here [29] concerns me as I am afraid IRC could be used as a back channel to agitate against his perceived opponents without their knowledge. The existing mechanism at ANI and SPI obviously work, it's transparent and the alleged harassment has ended. -- Nug ( talk) 07:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Ryulong, did you ask for help from the Wikimedia Foundation with all the harassment you have been getting? They are usually really on the ball and eager to help en.wp editors, especially prolific content editors and/or administrators such as yourself, be free from bullying, intimidation, or harassing behavior. The WMF is especially responsive and appreciative of those volunteers that have spent large percentages of their lives helping improve this project. Haven't you been offered the free T-shirt recently, for example? If so, doesn't that mitigate all the harassment you have received over the years? Cla68 ( talk) 10:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
The following sanction is vacated with immediate effect.
3) Should Ryulong be found to be seeking or requesting any administrative action on IRC against users with whom he is in dispute, he may be reported to ANI or the Arbitration Enforcement page.
Enacted - Rs chen 7754 17:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
During the original case Ryulong was admonished for excessive off-wiki requests of an inappropriate nature in remedy 3b, which reads in part:
(B) For contacting administrators in private to seek either blocks on users he is in dispute with, or the performance of other administrative actions. Any further occurrence would lead to sanctions.
The admonishment is left in place as warning not to return to the excessive and/or inappropriate behavior of the past, but the final sentence "Any further occurrence would lead to sanctions." is to be stricken.
Enacted - Rs chen 7754 17:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by — Mythdon at 21:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I am requesting an amendment concerning the restriction barring me from verifiablity/reliable sources that came as a result of this clarification and this discussion
This restriction came as the result of me having unwilling to produce guideline for tokusatsu articles as outlined in the decision at the closure of the case while persisting in the behavior that led to various urges to seek outside input and work more collaboratively of my views regarding verifiability. There not long after I received a topic ban from Tokusatsu/Ryulong after this enforcement of the gratitious mention I made of Ryulong
I have not edited the tokusatsu articles since my unblock given as I held myself to voluntary restriction from editing the topic area
The edits I make these days include contributing to the articles I have interest including television stations and The Sims and making minor corrections to errors in articles like spelling and grammer and vandal fighting. I realize my activity has gone down a bunch since my unblock with having let go of all the old habits and old behaviors that led to my September 2009 banning which six months later when I repeated my habits I was blocked indef. My edits gone down a bit since my unblock and I go into spurts of being active and then inactive and then active again
Having no longer any interest to edit the topic area as I outgrew the subject area and having held myself to the voluntary restriction for the security of allowing myself get over the emotional attachment to the articles and to force myself to be productive in other areas. I had been asked and advised by various editors to go find other topic areas to edit while I was editing the topic area and honestly I can say I never made one positive contribution to the topic area but since my unblock I have made productive contributions to other topic areas with referenced content. I have been stumped on what to do about the situation about me being restricted commenting on reliable sources as on one hand I feel it be wrong to only return to the topic area as part of a process pertaining to a remedy but on the other hand if I have nothing to offer the topic area then I think if I just learned from the behavior that led to it that I can make things a fresh start in other topic areas and a new opportunity to avoid the confrontations and behaviors that led my past sanctions
But having learned from the behavior that led to it from my strict interpretations of policy and failing to collaborate with others about my stances and refusing to produce a guideline, what I am requesting is to lift the no commenting on verifiablity and reliable sources sanctions. I have been watching over the topic area even though I no longer edit it and none of the arguments that occurred that led to the guideline remedy are happening as most of those disputes during the time I edited was by a certain editor (myself) doing whatever he could to get the topic area to where he saw fit as most of the never ending disputes were initiated by myself. So the way I see it is this restrictions purpose has been served in having learned from the behavior and its been five years and a lot of the topic areas problems left when I was topic banned and is now only moot as if I were to source an article I would not be allowed to discuss it if an editor were to question my edits
If the sanction should be lifted I will promise to avoid any behavior that led to the sanctions and urges on verifiability and will work more toward an effort to collaborate on verifiablity and to let go of the old strict interpreations of policies including verifiablity which I already no longer am hung up on strict disruptive intepretation of policy. But if the arbcom decision should be that I return to the topic area to help produce a guideline then thats what I will do. Most of the arbs that were arbs at the time this was put in place are no longer arbs and I recommend all arbs take a look at the case before coming to any decision. I will be bound by any result the arbcom should come of this. Thank you for taking the time to read. — Mythdon 21:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Noted. I think this is fairest way to go about as opportunity to further work on old past behavior showing I have infact learned from my past sanctions. From what I read of this is that the restriction is to remain in place but to now both simplistically and broadly construe the intent of the remedy. I shall keep this all in mind in my future editing even after the restriction ends. All is noted here and it all works out. — Mythdon 00:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I know much of this case from start to finish, and there is a long history so there will no doubt be some uncertainty regarding what happened here. To bring some context to this, after the original case remedies were enacted Mythdon had initiated a significant number of "clarification/amendment" requests (brace yourself as there's a bit to read in each: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]). The third request/diff is the discussion where this restriction was imposed by way of motion, and his last request is found in the last diff where the site ban in 2009 was imposed. I understand Mythdon appealed to the committee but ultimately his 2012 appeal was directed to the community. The appeal was successful (the community agreed to lift the site ban).
Overall:
I hope that assists somewhat anyway. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 07:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I was around back when Mythdon was originally banned. At the time, he was known for being extremely terse, unfriendly, and overly concerned with trivialities. See his first RfA back in 2009 to get a sense of what I mean by that. But I don't think it's really relevant anymore, as he's clearly changed quite a bit. He has expressed a genuine understanding of where he went wrong, and as far as I can tell, there have been no problems since being unblocked.
This sanction serves no further purpose and should be lifted. Kurtis (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
The remedy "Mythdon further restricted (4 August 2009)" is revoked. Mythdon is instead restricted as follows for the longer of one year or 500 edits. If, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, Mythdon: a) behaves disruptively at XFD discussions;
b) unreasonably nominates multiple articles for deletion; or
c) unreasonably places maintenance tags on multiple articles;
then Mythdon may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.
Enacted with Mythadon's current edit count being 8910. -- L235 ( talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 06:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I would like to start by saying that it is truly unfortunate that it has come to this, but I feel that all other methods of communication and dispute resolution has failed.
Ryulong has been a active administrator on Wikipedia, and during his time here has helped the project significantly. Unfortunately, he has failed to take constructive criticism from the community at large and has continued to use his administrative tools in a disruptive and at times abusive way. While the second request for comment was in progress, Ryulong has continued to be abrasive, and threatens to use his tools against a user whom he is involved in a dispute with (the founding reason the RfC was filed). I urge the committee to look at all the diffs provided in the second RfC to completely understand the long term patter of disruption.
I would also like to note that in opening the second RfC I hoped that Ryulong would change his behavior and gave him many opportunities, but judging by his most recent actions he has not taken them. I would also like to note that I added the ANI diff to the above list of prior attempts at dispute resolution.
I am going to have to disagree with you here Hersfold, there are more issues than just that one block threat that occurred during the second RfC including this block which is a first time block of one week, on a IP editor whom is editing the same subjects as Ryulong. I would also like to not some other questionable rollbacks that were preformed during the RfC, a large removal of non-vandalism content, another removal of non-vandalism content, a rollback of a IP whom made some wikimark up edits (non-vandalism), and rolling back a clearly good faith edit. He also recently threatened to block an IP whom was changing the heading colors on a article that he edits on a regular basis. Tiptoety talk 14:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
First let me start by saying that the result of the RfC was to come here as the issues being addressed were not being fixed, so there is really no "evidence" of abuse since the RfC...but there is evidence of it during the RfC (or after it was filed). I would also like to note that the RfC was doomed from the start as stated that he was not willing to change his actions. In regards to your request for evidence of further issues during or after the RfC I ask you to look at the diffs provided in the section above (the reply to Hersfold). Tiptoety talk 19:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
He is no longer open to recall, so that point is moot. If you wish to know why, you can ask him but I am not sure it is relevant. Tiptoety talk 04:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes from the 16th to the 17th Ryulong engaged in a edit war ( page history). Also all those diffs cited in the above section directed towards Hersfold are all after the RfC were filled. Please see that section, as I have also asked in multiple other sections. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 03:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I am ambivalent towards Ryulong and his admin work. On the one hand, he is an all-around excellent maintenance worker which the site highly values. But on the other, I have found some of his comments to have a very "as an admin my judgment is naturally sound" feel to them. Master&Expert ( Talk) 04:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Ryulong has been an admin since early 2007. If I hadn't known this, I would have assumed he was relatively inexperienced, due to the number of abusive and other problematic actions he has done with admin rights. Lots of significant concerns were raised on his successful RFA, that passed with an unusually low percentage. Ryulong says he is trying to work on issues raised from the RFCs. This is not acceptable, when one has never really been suited for adminship. Bluntly, if he had never been an admin, and was to request now, he'd fail dismally. The problem here is that there has been a significant problem for a long, long time. Admins need to always have trust and respect from the community, and Ryulong lacks both these things, and has done for a while. His continuation as an admin is generally a net negative in my opinion. We should refrain from giving people, especially admins, chance after chance after chance to "work on issues" and to "redeem themselves". Why? Because there should never be any issues to work on or to redeem.
Hersfolds statements really concern me. If Ryulong has been getting advice from others, and still shows a pattern of abusive use of tools, such that experienced users feel the need to do something; I think there is something for the committee to review. After the first RfC on Ryulong, he seemed to take a lot of the communities concerns to heart. At that one, there were a number of other admins, who were very dismissive of the attempt to reign in one of their own. It was only after numerous users pointed to specific problems, and requested not deadmining (though some did), but simply a change in his behavior that obstruction slowed and the concerns could be clearly presented to Ryulong. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 19:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay I spotted this recently. I've not dealt with Ryulong that I can remember of myself but in his 3rd RFA which he passed from that to become administrator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ryulong he said he would be open for recall.
Here's a quote:
---
“ |
|
” |
---
Basically, arbitrations are very time consuming and lengthy. It often has people getting all angry at each other and results in some people getting punished, sanctioned, etc. The administrators open to recall is a there to make things more efficient. Why not just use that to handle things instead? I think it would save a lot of time. Are you ready for IPv6? ( talk) 02:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Ooops I typed the URL wrong. I went to the first RFA and not the third. The third was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ryulong_3 and the quote I was looking for was
---
“ |
|
” |
---
Are you ready for IPv6? ( talk) 03:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I want to point out a few things before this is opened/rejected/whatever; comprising of a note, an unusual comment/critique, and another comment.
The RfC was closed by Tiptoety, and I added it to the archives with the understanding that it may be reopened only immediately following a decline of this request - should arbitrators deem it necessary opening the case, then there's no justification to turn back.
Beyond this, there's really only one other thing I believe I've commented on with respect to this - that Mythdon should voluntarily agree to stop interacting with or commenting on Ryulong. There was general agreement with this view by others, as suggested on the RfC's talk page. All that said, courtesy of what I call "modern technology" with respect to email access, when certain users, even if they are arbitrators, join forces with grudge-holders in allowing the needless escalation of matters (as opposed to dissolving them by joining the wider community chorus that says '...back off; find a more productive hobby that isn't so....'), I suppose it'd be too much to expect a decent understanding or feeling of care with respect to this sensitive issue. The justification for dissolving the issue and letting other issues arise without interference, far outweighs the justification for refusing to do so (which by contrast, has the effect of a nasty toxic chemical reaction of sorts - it'd be sad to see it blow up in anyones face). But I digress, and note the uneasy distinction (if any) between "a very hypothetical scenario" and "reality".
With the exception of this issue concerning interacting/commenting, the only other thing worth pointing out is two broad categories which should make 'what the decision ought to be' quite clear...but then again, I myself don't have a view on this dispute. :) Sometimes an RfC needs to move straight to arbitration, even where opened for a short time. But it is sometimes important to keep an RfC open, or to wait after an RfC is closed - the subject may make genuine (and I really do mean genuine) attempts to improve, yet may at any or all times, still put up fronts as if he/she will do little to nothing. That's all I have to say. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 13:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
This Request for Arbitration was long overdue. Whilst I respect much of the good work Ryulong has performed, his attitude for too long has been nothing short of a disgrace. The sheer arrogance and rudeness he has displayed in some of his comments, and his total contempt for other users "beneath" him lead me to feel that nothing short of a total revocation of his full administrator rights will be sufficient. Hopefully, such sanctions might enforce a more humbling attitude, and should such action prove to be effective, I would be all for a reinstatement once noticeable changes are observed. C.U.T.K.D T | C 09:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I am requesting clarification for the wording of the terms of my soon-to-be mentorship.
In term B of "Mythdon restricted and placed under mentorship", it states "Mythdon should consult and take guidance from the mentor when issues arise concerning their editing or behavior". I am confused as to who this is referring to. The confusion is is that the word "their" refers to multiple other people, but it's clear that in the other restriction(s), the word discusses me as evidenced by their wording. However, I am not certain as to what the word means in this term (term B). Here's the question: Does "their" in term B refer to issues regarding my editing/behavior or other editors editing/behavior?
I am also asking for clarification on the wording of term C. It states "During mentorship, Mythdon is restricted from making edits such as unnecessary questions and abusive warnings to users' talk pages if not approved by their mentor" - In regards to "abusive warnings", does this go for all warnings, or does it simply go for warnings (i.e. my past warnings to admins/rollbackers about their use of rollback) that were judged to be abusive? The word "abusive" raises questions, and did raise a similar questions here, but that doesn't clarify my question. As an unrelated note, while my next statement here would not deal with something that needs any clarification, if anyone ever asks, as a result of arbitrator FayssalF's statement "After all, you'll [Mythdon] be consulting with him before making any edit to anyone's talk page", besides my own talk page, I have made absolutely zero edits to user talk namespace since the closure of the case.
While you may find this request for clarification a bit ridiculous, please seriously consider clarifying.
If any other editor has additional questions regarding this or any other remedy, please do so. It may very well clarify something that I thought was some other way.
No, I have not found or attempted to find a mentor yet, in case an arbitrator asks me. If I do get assigned a mentor (which will most certainly likely happen), and if I edit during the mentorship, these are things I need to know before any interpretations are made. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 06:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to remind Risker and Newyorkbrad that before acting as arbitrators in this request, that they recused themselves from the relevant case voluntarily. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 06:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
In term D, it states:
While this term only covers comments about the user, I am unsure as to whether comments to the user apply as well. Does this also apply to interactions? I believe so. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 21:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
After the mentors appointment, in regards to "...may only comment after the appointment with his mentor's prior approval.", would this "approval" approve of all future comments to/about Ryulong without further approvals or would I have to gain approval for every single comment? My suspicions are leaning towards "...approval for every single comment". — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the first point, I hate to say it, but I told you so. :)
As you were. Stifle ( talk) 10:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I have additional questions regarding my mentorship ruling.
In regards to term A, it says:
In the recently closed Mattisse case, there is ruling of mentorship there as well stating that Matissee shall be assigned mentors by the committee within 15 days of that decision. But, also, unlike mine, there is a ruling here that directs Mattisse not to edit Wikipedia if the "plan" is not accomplished within the 15 day period without Committee permission. Because of that, I have this question; Since my month long time limit to find a mentor is up (it's been up since approximately June 24), am I prohibited from editing Wikipedia at all until the appointment or am I just prohibited from making edits that require the mentor approval?
In regards to term B, it says:
I am having a hard time understanding the beginning sentence of that term "Mythdon should consult and take guidance from the mentor when issues arise concerning their editing or behavior". I do not know what is being meant by "consult". Does it mean "consult your mentor when you're unsure of whether an edit is legitimate?" - My suspicion is "yes".
Since I'm not 100% sure as of this moment, I need further clarification on this case ruling. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 00:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
In response to: "Why have you not acquired a mentor? Have you had difficulty finding someone to agree? Were you unsure of where to look or how to approach the matter?" - To answer these first three questions, I'll respond to those all in the same answer; I intentionally have not found a mentor yet. The first reason is because I don't feel like doing so, and the other is because I'm not interested in having a mentor.
In response to: "...what areas do you feel you need the most guidance in?" - I don't feel like I need any guidance in any area. I feel that I've worked functional enough in the areas I've worked in before the remedy was put in place. I don't think I need any guidance from a mentor.
In response to: "What sort of advice would be most helpful for you?" - I don't think I need any advice. I think that I know how, what, where, and when to do something without advice from a mentor. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 05:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
In regards to term D "Mythdon shall not comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about Ryulong on any page in Wikipedia until a mentor is appointed and may only comment after the appointment with his mentor's prior approval.", am I allowed to revert any post Ryulong makes on my talk page? Since the case, I have either reverted or ignored any post he's made on my talk page, but I think it's about time this gets clarified.
During the mentorship, can the committee pass a motion to place a site ban on me for a period of time through a simple majority vote if the committee has any reason to believe it is the only approach? — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 00:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The answers to your question is here. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 05:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
In response to the motion.
In response to; "This includes, but is not limited to, incivility, edit warring and failing to appropriately pursue dispute resolution." - Could an arbitrator please clarify why "incivility" is part of this probation? I don't engage in incivility.
In response to; "Any uninvolved administrator may utilize discretionary sanctions, including topic bans and blocks, to enforce this probation." - I'm not really planning on editing the pages during the probation. After all, since before the mentorship remedy finished voting, I have been making plans not to edit Wikipedia during the one year period. If this probation motion doesn't pass, and if a mentor is appointed, I will consider not editing for the period. I do not feel that I should edit if such a situation were to occur. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 20:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
In second response to; "This includes, but is not limited to, incivility, edit warring and failing to appropriately pursue dispute resolution." - And what else? — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 20:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, I would to ask what the committee will do with term (C); "During mentorship, Mythdon is restricted from making edits such as unnecessary questions and abusive warnings to users' talk pages if not approved by their mentor. The mentor will be asked to assist them in understanding community practice to a sufficient level that continued sanctions will not be necessary." - What will happen to this with the motion? Will I still be prohibited from making these edits? What will happen? — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 01:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
What would count as "abusive warnings to users' talk pages"? — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 17:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Could you please clarify what the motion means by "better communication skills"? — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 18:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I did not say that the discussion ended. All I said was that a few comments were made to the discussion since then, and asked that if the discussion were to end, would dispute resolution still be necessary? It's a simple question. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
In response to this addendum.
First let me respond to: "I asked him in the past if he even watched the shows, and he replied that he did not" - Only twice have I made any reference to whether or not I've watched the shows. Here's the first example when I say "Well, I haven't seen the show either" as part of the statement in that diff. "The show" refers to Power Rangers: RPM in this statement. Secondly, in February 2009, Ryulong asked me if I watched Power Rangers: Mystic Force to make a judgment of a merge proposal and I told him that I did.
More responses may come soon. Thanks. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 00:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
In response to "Seeing as he is not bringing his issues to the attention of WP:TOKU, banning him from editing these pages will be a much more effective way to curb his behavior" - The reason I haven't done this lately is due to mentorship term (D); "Mythdon shall not comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about Ryulong on any page in Wikipedia until a mentor is appointed and may only comment after the appointment with his mentor's prior approval.". This restriction only mentions commenting about, but former arbitrator Kirill Lokshin clarified in June 2009 that I was also restricted from making any comment to Ryulong as well, clarification here. At WT:TOKU and its archives of 2008, you'll see many comments of Ryulong replying to more than 95% of my comments on talk pages. Please take the May 24, 2009-onward comments to me more seriously. Also, take a look at Talk:Power Rangers, where Ryulong responds to a post I make after May 24, 2009 (see here). — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I've only had a few things to say to Mythdon since the close of the case on his user talk. The first one was removed without comment, the second and third were removed referring to the arbitration proceedings. I know that he's restricted from commenting about me but I really doubt he's restricted from communicating with me entirely. There is no way he and I can constructively contribute in the same topic area if he continues to ignore my statements after I have to clean up after him being overly strict with content policies, simply being entirely unknowledgable in the topic area, or treating aspects of the project more bureaucratically than they should be.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 04:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I would like the arbitration committee to be aware of this discussion on Mythdon's user talk with three other users concerning his strict application and reading of various policies. It seems that he has moved onto other topic areas with his requests for every sentence to be referenced and whatever cannot be referenced (sans common sense or other pages) should be deleted.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 21:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
In the past several hours after seeing this edit, I've seen Mythdon, as usual, removing words, statements, or entire paragraphs of content on Power Rangers and other related pages without bringing anything up for discussion. As I cannot (apparently) leave him any sort of message concerning issues I have with his editing practices, I've been advised to append my statement here. Diffs are included below (in no particular order).
Everything in these are supported by the fictional media themselves. I asked him in the past if he even watched the shows, and he replied that he did not. I cannot understand why he continues to edit in this topic area if he does not even bother to follow the media in any form. He cannot contribute constructively in this topic area (anything under the umbrella of WP:TOKU), and frankly a topic ban would be much more worthwhile (in my opinion) rather than sticking him under various new restrictions that he will take the verbatim reading, as has shown in his knowledge of various Wikipedia policies. I understand the pages are not perfect, but there's no way that Mythdon has ever improved them.
Long before the arbitration case was filed, I've wanted to get Mythdon banned from the topic area, but I could never initiate the ban (or discussion) because of my deep involvement in dealing with Mythdon. Seeing as he is not bringing his issues to the attention of WP:TOKU, banning him from editing these pages will be a much more effective way to curb his behavior.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 00:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Really? I want a one sentence answer from him and he won't do anything because of how he's interpreting the restrictions placed on him.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 06:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
And I won't get an answer. Even when I didn't even put the question on the page, he undid my null edit. This is getting fucking ridiculous.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 06:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry, now it is fucking ridiculous.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 07:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Mythdon restricted and placed under mentorship is vacated and replaced with the following:
Mythdon is placed under conduct probation for one year, in relation to WikiProject Tokusatsu and Ryulong, broadly construed. This includes, but is not limited to, incivility, edit warring and failing to appropriately pursue dispute resolution.
Any uninvolved administrator may utilize discretionary sanctions, including topic bans and blocks, to enforce this probation. Acting administrators are encouraged to apply sanctions tailored to the circumstances and context. For the purposes of enforcing this measure, any administrator approached directly by Ryulong for enforcement should not act directly. In such a situation, raise both Ryulong's and Mythdon's conduct in normal venues for review.
As noted in a portion quoted by Mythdon, a demonstrated inability to work with a mentor may result in other sanctions. Mythdon's response to my questions illustrates that he is unwilling to accept the guidance and advice of a mentor. Rather than impose a broad topic ban that would severely impede his ability to contribute to the project, I propose this measure. It is explicitly intended to cover a broad range of behavior within the specific areas of dispute. It authorizes and encourages administrators to use their discretion to address the specific situation and context. The closing portion regarding Ryulong is a modification of the "any uninvolved admin" clause, based on the context of the arbitration case. This should permit Mythdon to continue contributing, while providing the project administrators with the tools to resolve any issues quickly and appropriately. -- Vassyana ( talk) 16:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Mythdon restricted and placed under mentorship is vacated and replaced with the following:
Mythdon is placed under conduct probation for one year, in relation to WikiProject Tokusatsu and Ryulong, broadly construed. This includes, but is not limited to, edit warring and failing to appropriately pursue dispute resolution and to show better communication skills. Mythdon will still be restricted from making edits such as unnecessary questions and abusive warnings to users' talk pages.
Any uninvolved administrator may utilize discretionary sanctions, including topic bans and blocks, to enforce this probation. Acting administrators are encouraged to apply sanctions tailored to the circumstances and context. For the purposes of enforcing this measure, any administrator approached directly by Ryulong for enforcement should not act directly. In such a situation, raise both Ryulong's and Mythdon's conduct in normal venues for review.
This alternative motion addresses Mythdon's response and questions concerning the above motion. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I am requesting an amendment to "Ryulong admonished" and the enforcement "Ryulong and users' identity seeking".
Taking a good look at the findings and evidence, there is no finding or evidence that Ryulong was seeking any users identity. Finding "Ryulong discussing the identity of Mythdon" makes no mention of identity seeking, but mentions identity discussion, if anything.
I think it is totally unjust to make a remedy on something that isn't found to had been going on—Trying to solve what is not happening. This is one of those cases. Was there a finding or any actual evidence that Ryulong sought any user personal information? No. Sam Blacketer voted against this enforcement for exactly that reason. Therefore, I request that we terminate this enforcement, and modify the admonishment to only direct Ryulong to refrain from doing what he was found to do. Note that this is not based on my personal preferences, but based on what is necessary for the cases judgment. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 01:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I am pursuing this because there is no finding of fact or evidence that Ryulong was actually seeking my identity. Arbitration remedies are to ensure that problems don't recur, not to ensure a problem never starts. It is not whether I give him permission to seek my identity, but whether the arbitration remedies serve a purpose. These do not obviously serve any purpose other than, if anything, prevent problems that have never occurred. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 14:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
What I am suggesting is not to make the remedy unenforceable, but to make the remedy fair to the evidence and findings of fact. There is no evidence that Ryulong was identity seeking, which is exactly why I am here. I also have a question, one which should be at Requests for Clarification. Will Ryulong be banned if he violates "identifying personal information of Wikipedia users, and from disclosing that information to others"? I'm curious, because you make it sound so. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, actually, Ryulong does wish for this amendment, and even if he didn't want this to be amended, that doesn't change the fact that this amendment is needed. I will quote what he said here:
With that quoted, "sure why not" + "I didn't like this restriction" equals up to statement of desire for the amendment. If you still doubt his acceptance, please take it up with him on his talk page. -- Mythdon talk • contribs 23:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
In response to Carcharoth, sure why not. I didn't like this restriction or whatever because it was based on the one-off instance when Mythdon was going out of his way to contact me on other websites and I merely relayed the information to another user, which was blown out of proportion by another edit that I did not make.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 00:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
This is pretty straightforward. Although this is not a substantive change to the decision, the enforcement part of a remedy belongs in the enforcement section of a decision; except in the case of temporary injunctions. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 13:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
This becomes necessary to avoid the potential unnecessary confusion caused (and the repetition otherwise caused by amendment 1). Ncmvocalist ( talk) 13:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I was actually thinking about asking the Arbitration Committee to remove the mentorship enforcement myself. I, like Ncmvocalist, ask that the Arbitration Committee remove this enforcement as it is moot, and not enforcing anything, and can't be used without the mentorship remedy being in place. Arbitration Committee members, please pass a new motion in which this enforcement be removed. As for the conduct probation enforcement being in the "enforcement" section, I think that it should also be there, strictly for stylistic reasons. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 15:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Kay...— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 23:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I am here to request a fourth clarification on the Ryulong case.
After some thinking, I have found that, even after my long list of questions in the last clarification, that there are still things that have been left unanswered.
I have the following questions:
If I have any additional questions, I will post them in this statement, though I likely wont have any questions in the future, unless the Arbitration Committee decides to amend the case again as they did in the second and third clarification requests. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 03:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Initiated by — Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) at 08:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
For the past eight months I have been working on the encyclopedia portion of the project almost exclusively, working on articles, contributing to the manuals of style that I most often encounter, and trying not to cause a scale of the problems that I had encountered with administrative tools. Other than removal of rollback rights after a dispute with Mythdon prior to his ban from the project (I cannot find where the discussion that resulted in this took place) and a couple of 3RR blocks ( #1, #2) that were placed hours after the edit wars died (and were later lifted) I have done nothing that requires administrative action to prevent me from doing anything.
With the Twinkle rollback I have used the function to give reasons along with the rollback less than the vandalism tagging one (I have used it and then realized the edits were not meant to deliberately cause damage, but these are rare) and the undo button more to leave comments as to why I am reverting edits.
I will admit that my communications with Powergate92 ( talk · contribs) have been getting strained, but I doubt that the issues will escalate to what occurred between myself and Mythdon ( talk · contribs).
When I have the administrative tools back, I will use them for what they were intended: maintaining the project, dealing with speedy deletions, blocking vandalizing users, helping settle disputes that show up on ANI and the related boards, etc. I will not use administrative rollback in my primary topic area unless it is blatant vandalism (as a few long term problem users have been cropping up lately within it). I will not threaten to block as a scare tactic. I will convene with other administrators before I perform what may be controversial actions.
If it is requested, I will agree to a form of some period where I am watched to make sure I do not fall back on the methods I used in the past and I expect to be placed under scrutiny once more. I mean the best for this project and I would like to help out once more with the extra buttons available.
Is there some reason you can't use RfA? Jtrainor ( talk) 16:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
No view as to the merits of this particular appeal, but entirely supportive of Arbcom having the lesser power of temporary desysop as well as the power of permanent desysop. The implication of that being that "or by appeal to ArbCom no less than 6 months after the closure of the case." means that Ryulong has the right of appeal to Arbcom in this case. So Arbcom should resysop him if they feel that he has done what Arbcom wanted him to do last May when they desysopped him but gave him leave to appeal after 6 months.
For the future I would suggest that when doing temporary desysops Arbcom should make it clear whether the right of appeal is for a fresh look at the case, or for a resysopping based on particular changes in editing activity. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
If a good case can be made for returning Admin rights to this user, this case should be made to the community. Even if I were to concede that there may be reasons for Arbcom to restore adminship without a new RFA, that reason needs to be more than concern that the community would not support the RFA. If the user has avoided returning to RFA for this reason, than this proposed restoration could be seen as an attempt to over-rule community concern.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 18:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
From what I know of RfA, I doubt that Ryulong would be judged by the editors there solely on the reason his tools were removed. My opinion is that he should be judged in context of his arbcom case, as the community has already judged him worthy of the tools. RfA has changed, and if Ryulong had not committed the infractions he was found guilty of, he would still have the tools. Because of this, all of his editing skills and judgement should be considered acceptable except for those brought up in his arbcom case. The community should still have input on this decision, but RfA is not the correct venue from what I can see. Malinaccier ( talk) 02:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
While ArbCom certainly has the right to restore the sysop bit to Ryulong if they wish to do so, I feel it would be better in this case to require a new RFA. I think the sysop bit should only be restored in cases of clearly temporary desysoppings; this one wasn't temporary, but rather indefinite, until such time as ArbCom wishes to overturn it. Unless there are reasons to think the original desysopping was flawed, Ryulong's status should stand, and he should try to regain the tools through the usual process of gaining community consensus in an RFA. (Yes, RFA is unfortunately different from how it used to be - it seems a lot harsher these days - but that's not really relevant here.) Robofish ( talk) 18:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree 100% with WSC. This avenue for resysop was explicitly stated in the previous ruling, thus it is an option for resysopping. IMHO, it is up to the Committee to determine if time served justifies restoring the bit. The only way that an RfA should be required would be if ArbCOM didn't feel that his actions have changed or improved---eg refused to act in a manner previously indicated in their past statements. Should that happen, then ArbCOM refusal to act would almost definately hurt his chances at an RfA. As per WSC, I have not looked into the particulars of this case, so this is a general support of ArbCOM's rights and responsibilities as laid out in the initial motion.--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC) @Knight, I think your point is exactly why WSC and I worded our comments the way we did. Neither of us are taking a position related to the case in question, but rather upon the Committee's obligation to do so when the Committee made the option to appeal to them a possibility. R- was desyssopped at Committee behest, with the caveat that he could go through another RfA or apply to the committee. These were the options presented to him at the time. IMO, it is within his right to make this request, and the committees right to reinstate the tools. It is also appropriate for you to refer this to RfA, but I don't think the default should be that. IMHO, moving in and out of adminship should be easier than it is. That is the only way that aminship will ever live up to the monicker, no big deal. Sending cases back through RfA, does not make it easier, but harder.--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
There has been ongoing discussion about the ever-increasing standards applied to editors at RfA. For good or ill, these standards are the ones accepted by the community at this time. The level of scrutiny given to most editors in that process is likely much higher than that which could be given by the small number of ArbCom members who will render this decision, and applying that community standard is particularly appropriate in this case. Resysopping this editor will necessitate a higher level of monitoring than is the norm (as the editor concedes), and I believe that there is no reason to place that decision on so small a number of other editors, even ones given a high degree of trust. I am generally opposed to any resysopping without a new RfA, and specifically opposed to it in this instance.-- otherl left 15:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Initiated by — Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) at 02:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I would like these three aspects concerning the seeking of real life identities to be removed entirely from my injunction as they are in no way relevant to what had happened.
It has been two years since the injunctions against me were filed and these related entries are the ones I still have issues with. As I stated in my original whatever it was that the now banned user Mythdon was the instigator in this supposed "real life identity" searching. Prior to the ArbCom case, Mythdon went out of his way to bother me on my YouTube channel. I still have the incoming and outgoing messages Mythdon sent me via YouTube, asking if the YouTube user Ryulong was in fact me (which it is). The only thing I provided to MBisanz was a link to the profile Mythdon was using which happened to include his age at the time. I have never gone out of my way to seek out the real life identity of anyone, including Mythdon, and I find that these particular findings and injunctions against me are overly unnecessary and they make it appear I had done something which I never did. If necessary, I can provide the messages received through YouTube from 2008 in which Mythdon continued his harassment off site, unprovoked.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 02:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Initiated by — Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) at 12:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Lately, I have been the target of harassment by a slew of sockpuppets of editors who have been banned from this website, in some cases for years. Allegedly, these count as "users with whom [I am] in dispute". Is this correct? Considering how WP:SPI is chronically backlogged and as is evident banned users have all the free time in the world to continue their harassment campaigns, using the #wikipedia-en-spi channel or using IRC to contact an administrator who has been assisting me in on-site requests to notify them of new sockpuppets will solve these issues affecting the site as well as my ability to participate on this site without constant harassment.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 12:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Carcharoth: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dragonron (actually Wiki-star, with most of the previous investigation held under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zarbon and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zarbon because of Zarbon suffering harassment and impersonation) and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AS92813 (highly likely to be BuickCenturyDriver/ Don't Feed the Zords [both same operator], cases previously Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BuickCenturyDriver & Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Don't Feed the Zords).— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 04:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Nug's posting here is irrelevant and retaliatory to the content dispute currently under discussion at Talk:Soviet Union, as has been most of his behavior to me since I re-entered the discussion on that page for the past week, including his attempts to WP:boomerang the thread I started at WP:ANI and his piling onto discussions started by banned users' sockpuppets. The thread he points to at ANI, after he repeatedly tried to derail it, had an administrator arrive and note that the behavior of the user I was reporting was problematic. Sending a message to N-HH to inform him of renewed discussion that he was once a party to is not canvassing, nor is suggesting to him the possible venues in which to raise our problems with Nug's behavior on the article. And no, the "alleged harassment" has not ended. The fact that one banned user has been harassing someone for 8 years and another has returned a year after his last socks were shut down shows that both individuals who have harassed me in the past several weeks will continue to do so once they find the technical means to evade the blocks put in place, as they seem to be adept at.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 10:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Carcharoth: At this point I don't know if enforcing the ban counts as harassment when it comes to one of the users (see all the edits between protections [also for some reason he's violating copyright now]) but if something can be done about that, then by all means help me figure that out.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 13:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
"Regardless of the original merits of this sanction, five years later it does not appear to be serving a legitimate purpose in preventing disruption."
I am delighted to see such a common-sense statement on ArbCom, though the barn door is long locked on vacancy. That being said, I support the request and motion.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Carcharoth: See User talk:Callanecc/Archive 9#174.236.68.115, WP:ANI#Recent behavior of ryulong, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dragonron/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AS92813/Archive. And for the record, I also support the motion. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 03:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Ryulong's seems to have an apparent tendency to seek administrative intervention against perceived content opponents, for example this recent ANI thread titled " Nanshu's ad hominem attacks". I've lately come to his attention and this apparent attempt at canvasing here [29] concerns me as I am afraid IRC could be used as a back channel to agitate against his perceived opponents without their knowledge. The existing mechanism at ANI and SPI obviously work, it's transparent and the alleged harassment has ended. -- Nug ( talk) 07:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Ryulong, did you ask for help from the Wikimedia Foundation with all the harassment you have been getting? They are usually really on the ball and eager to help en.wp editors, especially prolific content editors and/or administrators such as yourself, be free from bullying, intimidation, or harassing behavior. The WMF is especially responsive and appreciative of those volunteers that have spent large percentages of their lives helping improve this project. Haven't you been offered the free T-shirt recently, for example? If so, doesn't that mitigate all the harassment you have received over the years? Cla68 ( talk) 10:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
The following sanction is vacated with immediate effect.
3) Should Ryulong be found to be seeking or requesting any administrative action on IRC against users with whom he is in dispute, he may be reported to ANI or the Arbitration Enforcement page.
Enacted - Rs chen 7754 17:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
During the original case Ryulong was admonished for excessive off-wiki requests of an inappropriate nature in remedy 3b, which reads in part:
(B) For contacting administrators in private to seek either blocks on users he is in dispute with, or the performance of other administrative actions. Any further occurrence would lead to sanctions.
The admonishment is left in place as warning not to return to the excessive and/or inappropriate behavior of the past, but the final sentence "Any further occurrence would lead to sanctions." is to be stricken.
Enacted - Rs chen 7754 17:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by — Mythdon at 21:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I am requesting an amendment concerning the restriction barring me from verifiablity/reliable sources that came as a result of this clarification and this discussion
This restriction came as the result of me having unwilling to produce guideline for tokusatsu articles as outlined in the decision at the closure of the case while persisting in the behavior that led to various urges to seek outside input and work more collaboratively of my views regarding verifiability. There not long after I received a topic ban from Tokusatsu/Ryulong after this enforcement of the gratitious mention I made of Ryulong
I have not edited the tokusatsu articles since my unblock given as I held myself to voluntary restriction from editing the topic area
The edits I make these days include contributing to the articles I have interest including television stations and The Sims and making minor corrections to errors in articles like spelling and grammer and vandal fighting. I realize my activity has gone down a bunch since my unblock with having let go of all the old habits and old behaviors that led to my September 2009 banning which six months later when I repeated my habits I was blocked indef. My edits gone down a bit since my unblock and I go into spurts of being active and then inactive and then active again
Having no longer any interest to edit the topic area as I outgrew the subject area and having held myself to the voluntary restriction for the security of allowing myself get over the emotional attachment to the articles and to force myself to be productive in other areas. I had been asked and advised by various editors to go find other topic areas to edit while I was editing the topic area and honestly I can say I never made one positive contribution to the topic area but since my unblock I have made productive contributions to other topic areas with referenced content. I have been stumped on what to do about the situation about me being restricted commenting on reliable sources as on one hand I feel it be wrong to only return to the topic area as part of a process pertaining to a remedy but on the other hand if I have nothing to offer the topic area then I think if I just learned from the behavior that led to it that I can make things a fresh start in other topic areas and a new opportunity to avoid the confrontations and behaviors that led my past sanctions
But having learned from the behavior that led to it from my strict interpretations of policy and failing to collaborate with others about my stances and refusing to produce a guideline, what I am requesting is to lift the no commenting on verifiablity and reliable sources sanctions. I have been watching over the topic area even though I no longer edit it and none of the arguments that occurred that led to the guideline remedy are happening as most of those disputes during the time I edited was by a certain editor (myself) doing whatever he could to get the topic area to where he saw fit as most of the never ending disputes were initiated by myself. So the way I see it is this restrictions purpose has been served in having learned from the behavior and its been five years and a lot of the topic areas problems left when I was topic banned and is now only moot as if I were to source an article I would not be allowed to discuss it if an editor were to question my edits
If the sanction should be lifted I will promise to avoid any behavior that led to the sanctions and urges on verifiability and will work more toward an effort to collaborate on verifiablity and to let go of the old strict interpreations of policies including verifiablity which I already no longer am hung up on strict disruptive intepretation of policy. But if the arbcom decision should be that I return to the topic area to help produce a guideline then thats what I will do. Most of the arbs that were arbs at the time this was put in place are no longer arbs and I recommend all arbs take a look at the case before coming to any decision. I will be bound by any result the arbcom should come of this. Thank you for taking the time to read. — Mythdon 21:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Noted. I think this is fairest way to go about as opportunity to further work on old past behavior showing I have infact learned from my past sanctions. From what I read of this is that the restriction is to remain in place but to now both simplistically and broadly construe the intent of the remedy. I shall keep this all in mind in my future editing even after the restriction ends. All is noted here and it all works out. — Mythdon 00:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I know much of this case from start to finish, and there is a long history so there will no doubt be some uncertainty regarding what happened here. To bring some context to this, after the original case remedies were enacted Mythdon had initiated a significant number of "clarification/amendment" requests (brace yourself as there's a bit to read in each: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]). The third request/diff is the discussion where this restriction was imposed by way of motion, and his last request is found in the last diff where the site ban in 2009 was imposed. I understand Mythdon appealed to the committee but ultimately his 2012 appeal was directed to the community. The appeal was successful (the community agreed to lift the site ban).
Overall:
I hope that assists somewhat anyway. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 07:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I was around back when Mythdon was originally banned. At the time, he was known for being extremely terse, unfriendly, and overly concerned with trivialities. See his first RfA back in 2009 to get a sense of what I mean by that. But I don't think it's really relevant anymore, as he's clearly changed quite a bit. He has expressed a genuine understanding of where he went wrong, and as far as I can tell, there have been no problems since being unblocked.
This sanction serves no further purpose and should be lifted. Kurtis (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
The remedy "Mythdon further restricted (4 August 2009)" is revoked. Mythdon is instead restricted as follows for the longer of one year or 500 edits. If, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, Mythdon: a) behaves disruptively at XFD discussions;
b) unreasonably nominates multiple articles for deletion; or
c) unreasonably places maintenance tags on multiple articles;
then Mythdon may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.
Enacted with Mythadon's current edit count being 8910. -- L235 ( talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 06:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)