Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryulong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was:, the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 20:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

Ryulong has been an extremely valuable member of this project since February of 2006 - I don't think I can understate how much this user has helped add to Wikipedia through vandal fighting and use of his administrator tools. However, after a very contentious RFA, a condition of which was that he would show restraint, Ryulong has actually only significantly worsened. It is the rule, rather than the exception, for Ryulong to block users without the slightest bit of warning; often, they are good faith users, and worse, he almost always blocks their email (which should be a last resort). He blocks large swaths of IPs for months at a time, or even indefinitely, under the idea that they're open proxies, something which is extremely dubious (patroling CAT:UNBLOCK often turns up mystified IPs who can't understand why they've been blocked).

[edit] Desired outcome

  • Ryulong absolutely should warn vandals and POV pushers before blocking them.
  • Ryulong must stop blocking large swaths of IPs for long periods of time.
  • Ryulong stops blocking good faith users without warning.
  • Ryulong stops blocking users' email. This is a last resort.
  • Ryulong stops altogether with all sorts of trigger happy behavior.

[edit] Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

The evidence, unfortunately, is staggering. Ryulong has such a massive amount of edits, that it's nearly impossible to go through them all and list: these are only the ones I could find in the past 3 weeks.

Examples of failing to warn users before block
  1. Scissormecirces5 (talk · contribs) - I may be wrong about this user, there may be a history, but blocking a user without the slightest warning, and not for vandalism, is not good. I normally would
  2. George Felton (talk · contribs) - block overturned, because user promised to stop vandalizing.
  3. TheInformantofInfo (talk · contribs) - no warning.
  4. Trollporn (talk · contribs) - no warning. Username inappropriate, but it was a hardblock, and email was disabled, which is unnecessary.
  5. Borlath (talk · contribs) - no reason this user should not have been warned. He had two contributions over many months.
  6. YourRaajV (talk · contribs) - blocked for light spamming. No warning.
  7. 63.215.29.157 (talk · contribs) - two talk page blankings; no warnings.
  8. Nathaniel B. Heraniaos (talk · contribs) - why was this user blocked anyway? Did he not merit a warning? If he's a sock, then that should be noted.
  9. Civilwarguy (talk · contribs) -blocked as a probable hoaxer; not a single warning.
  10. Radfax (talk · contribs) - another possibly good faith user blocked without the slightest bit of warning.
  11. Xterra1 (talk · contribs) - was blocked twice by Ryulong, both times overturned.
  12. Omega Big Slim (talk · contribs) - same vein as Xterra. Clearly a new user who was confused about copyright issues. Blocking without even a warning was excessive and unnecessary.
  13. Rick lay95 (talk · contribs) - same again. Blocked without warning. User didn't even know why he was blocked.
  14. Lololololololololololololololol (talk · contribs) - A bad username? Probably. Hardblocking the IP without warning? Bad idea.
  15. Cjmarsicano (talk · contribs) - blocked indefinitely for removing GFDL from an image, without a warning? Absolutely ridiculous. While Ryulong undid this block, it just shows that Ryulong doesn't take blocks seriously enough.
  16. Gotonow (talk · contribs) - I'm giving Ryulong the benefit of the doubt in assuming this user really was inserting false information; but did he have good reason to block indef without warning?
  17. Pearl necklace jewelry (talk · contribs) - indef block without warning for spamming is quite inappropriate.
  18. Bacta (talk · contribs) - becuase no warning was given, block was overturned, and person returned only to contribute to WP. This is exactly why we have the warning system.
  19. You spin me round baby right round like a record (talk · contribs) - any reason to hardblock this username?
  20. 121.208.181.37 (talk · contribs) - placed 1 week block, without warning on editor who made good faith edits, after editor responded to other admin that he was not a sockpuppet and after that admin commented that he didn't think that the editor was a SSP because the location was on a different continent than the supposed puppeteer. Even after the ANI discussion was archived and the editor complained, Ryulong refused to lift the block. The block was overturned by a different admin, and when editor complained to Ryulong about unfairness in respectful manner, Ryulong responded by deleting the editor's two requests for apology, the second with the edit comment "My removal of your comments should be a hint as to drop the damn issue"
  21. 0reteki (talk · contribs) - No warning was given, was justifying his edits on 4chan, on Moderator's discussion when he was banned for harassment.
  22. Piratelime (talk · contribs) - wasn't warned at all, and while this editor was clearly not constructive, he was definitely not a blatant vandal.
Other examples of failing to warn clear vandals before block. Note, I have put these in a separate section, because some of these blocks seem justified, whereas most above did not. Thus, the section is here mostly to show that Ryulong basically never warns vandals.
  1. DTHEDRAGON3 (talk · contribs) - no warning.
  2. 67.182.79.246 (talk · contribs) - no warning.
  3. 69.181.137.212  (talk · contribs) - no warning.
  4. Timmymcslut (talk · contribs)
  5. Stupid swimmer (talk · contribs)
  6. Original MIB (talk · contribs)
Examples of blocks overturned
  1. User:Videmus Omnia - user blocked, without warning, by Ryulong, who didn't even bother to look at the time stamps before going through the block (later overturned by Ryulong himself, after significant opposition).
  2. User:ZordZapper - user blocked on a gut feeling of sockpuppetry. Overturned.
  3. User:Republicofwiki
  4. User: Deco Da Man - blocked twice by Ryulong, twice overturned.
  5. User:TheN0ble2
  6. User:LOrdSteiN
  7. User:Mmckinnie (overturned by Ryulong after being asked on talk page to not block users so quickly).
  8. User:Infodmz
  9. User:ForPrivacyConcerns
  10. User:HistoryBuffEr - overturned twice; is now blocked again by Ryulong.
  11. User:Jason Gastrich - blocked despite year being up on arbcom ruling. Soon reblocked for sockpuppeterring.
  12. User:Meisterchef - undone by Jimmy Wales
  13. User:Autocracy
  14. User:Xterra1 - blocked twice by Ryulong, without warning. Both times overturned, last time with the note ridiculous block. I personally encountered this user, and found absolutely nothing disruptive about him - just a confused new user.
  15. User:Civilwarguy (given Ryulong's subsequent reblock, it's difficult to tell if this is a good faith account).
  16. User:AfroPedia
  17. User:Gen. von Klinkerhoffen - blocked indefinitely for (virtually) one 3RR violation; unblocked by another admin
  18. User:AmendmentNumberOne - initially blocked and unblocked by another admin, then blocked again by Ryulong just because "no attempts have been made to edit a single article in the two days that this account was unblocked" (part of the stated reason for indefinite block by Ryulong); unblocked by Newyorkbrad
  19. User:George Felton - see above.
  20. User:Bacta - vandalism. Because no warning was given, block was overturned (he had only one vandal contribution, a likely test, and a good contribution before block). User returned to contribute positively. This is exactly why we have the warning system.
  21. User:Anonyymi - blocked indefinitely for alleged "trolling", unblocked by Ryulong himself after ~two days; feel free to read user's opinion about the case on his/her page and talk page
Other examples of user being trigger happy

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:AGF
  2. WP:BLOCK
  3. WP:BITE
  4. WP:CIVIL

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_14#Recall,
  2. User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_14#Indefinite_blocks
  3. User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_14#Rangeblock_of_64.231.64.0.2F18
  4. User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_14#Range-blocked_my_IP
  5. User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_13#Blocking_of_User:Republicofwiki - asked to AGF.
  6. User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_13#WP:DENY - asked to AGF.
  7. User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_13#User_Block
  8. User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_12#IP_block
  9. User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_11#Concerns_about_a_username_block
  10. User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_11#Blocking the range 88.154.0.0/16
  11. User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_11#Your block of new accounts posting at CSN
  12. User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_11#I unblocked Infodmz
  13. User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_10#Blocking of User:Superc63
  14. User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_10#82.110.0.0/16 rangeblock

[edit] Statement of dispute by Videmus Omnia

I'm adding this view because I've twice been on the receiving end of undiscussed blocks and incivil behavior by Ryulong.

The first occasion, on 2007-06-17, at a time when I was not online, Ryulong left a message on my talk page at 05:24 telling me I had incorrectly tagged a free image as needing a rationale - an honest mistake on my part that I would gladly have fixed given the chance.[1] Only 3 minutes after leaving this message, he indefinitely blocked me with the 3-word summary in the block log "abusing multiple accounts" (and he also blocked my IP at the same time)[2] He failed to even leave a message a message on my talk page explaining the block, though he came back at 06:16 to blank the archive code from my talk page without an edit summary.[3] When I came back online the next day, I didn't even know I'd been blocked at first - I answered a couple of posts on my talk page (including Ryulong's) and realized that both my account and my IP had been blocked only when I tried to edit something other than my talk page.

I spent the day trying to get unblocked or to get someone to listen to me. For reasons I've never fully understood, SlimVirgin declined the unblock request.[4] My only option at that point was get on the unblock channel on IRC to seek out a hearing. None of the admins there would listen to me without first talking to Ryulong; I was finally able to reach him on the IRC channel - I requested that he post the block to WP:AN or WP:ANI for review, his response to this request was "Irrelevant". (I've posted the log of this conversation to User:Videmus Omnia/IRC Log, and note that logging of conversations in the unblock channel is expressly permitted. More on that later.) In the conversation, he repeatedly demanded that I reveal personal information to him (which I felt that a simple administrator has no right to do), when I refused, and continued to ask for a neutral review, he brusquely said "I'm out of here" and disconnected.

Apparently he then used my IP address from the IRC conversation to dig out my old account[5] (which I had abandoned under right to vanish, because it was associated with my real full name) and satisfied himself that I was not disruptive. He then unblocked me.[6] At this time I felt that his behavior had been extremely arbitrary, incivil, invasive of my privacy and bitey, especially in the IRC channel. Although my account was relatively new, I had hundreds of constructive edits and absolutely no disuption (aside from one minor honest mistake). At that point, I had intended to file an RfC (though at that time he had fully protected his RfC page from creation) - so I created a user subpage with the IRC log of the conversation to use as evidence. Apparently stalking my contribs, he twice deleted the evidence page as quickly as I could create it.[7] - even though logging of that channel is expressly permitted. This led to a converstation on my talk page which can be seen at User talk:Videmus Omnia/Archive/Jun 2007#Block. At that point I gave up on the idea of an RfC because I could not present evidence. I did file a report at WP:ANI (now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive261#Incivility by Ryulong) but it quickly degenerated into a discussion of IRC channel behavior (which was controversial at that time) and nothing happened.

The only reason I was able to get out from under my unjust indefinite block was that I already had some experience with Wikipedia, I was persistent, and knew my rights. A truly new user would undoubtedly have just left permanently. Despite my requests, Ryulong never would explain why he thought my account was a violation of WP:SOCK, why he thought I was abusive despite a record of good-faith editing, why his behavior was incivil, or why he thought he had a right to invade my privacy. What I've seen lately has done nothing to give me the impression that his behavior, or his willingness to violate WP:CIVIL, WP:BLOCK, or WP:BITE, have improved at all.

No offense, but as you are directly involved in the dispute, yours isn't an outside view. It more properly goes in the Statement of dispute section. pschemp | talk 00:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Moved. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. The Evil Spartan 20:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC) - I am certifying this, but and am including my statement and evidence below above.
Skerlnik 03:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC). A review of his actions reveal a net detriment to Wikipedia. I think that a recall is in order. Striking comment made by sockpuppet. See user's contribs. ^demon[omg plz] 03:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. I have discussed a few of Ryulong's actions with him, but I don't feel sufficiently involved to sign under the above section. Anyway, Ryulong is extremely severe and hasty with the block button and often seems to not even review a user's contributions before blocking, doing so based on gut feelings or general impressions alone. He continues doing this kind of thing despite having many people tell him again and again to cool it. It's disappointing to see some people here on the RfC try to defend his behavior. By the way, count me as supporting his recall. Everyking 03:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. While Ryulong is a good admin, he's too pushy with the block button and this story is not a good one. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 03:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. I've read through a large number of the items on the Administrator's Noticeboard on Incidents to gain a better personal sense of how Wikipedia works and what to avoid. Anyway, it just seems that Ryulong gets complained about frequently on that board to the point of something being up: either a lot of sock puppets of one or a handful of disgruntled editors or evidence of a real problem with this administrator. Therefore, some kind of thorough re-examination would probably be helpful to either "clear" Ryulong or identify the admin's problems and allow for an acceptable compromise/solution. So, that is my read and I wish everyone good luck. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. The "block first, ask questions later" attitude smacks of Assume bad faith, and is very troubling. *Dan T.* 14:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Although I have never interacted with him, from what is presented above, I can see this is abuse of Admin powers and assumption of bad faith. Troll? Maybe.ionas68224|talk|contribs|email 17:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. I have had bad experiences with this Admin. He doesn't really bother to listen to what you have to say, neither does he care when you attempt to justify your edits on a certain page that he has repeatedly reverted for his own personal reasons. I was banned temporarily under the previous username, Urbanmeans for trying to justify be edits and view, for harrassment. 0reteki 23:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. This is a very harmful conduct indeed. I have seen Ryulong do a few other blocks which I thought to be a bit too fast and controversial, but I didn't make any note of it because he often blocks vandals, not registered users. Still, good faith should be assumed on new users at all times. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 19:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. I fully agree with Magnanimousjoe (check history of this page). Gen. von Klinkerhoffen 21:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

From what I'm seeing on my talk page, this is stemming from a block I performed on Activist4TRUTHinMEDICINE (talk · contribs) (which is "the final straw" for Evil Spartan). So, while I'm here, I may as well defend all of the blocks that Evil Spartan has listed above (several of which I have no idea were overturned, but I'm not about to go out and reblock them).

  1. Videmus Omnia explains exactly what happened. I thought that he was a bit too entrenched in fair use policy, I blocked, and after he contacted me and he said that he did have a previous account, I wanted to check it to see if he was abusing multiple accounts, and then I would unblock him. He would not tell me, so I used what information I got from my IRC client, checked at Wikipedia, found the original account, unblocked him, and expected never to deal with him, again (oh how wrong I was).
  2. ZordZapper was indefinitely blocked because there is (amazingly) a handful of sockpuppeteers who vandalize articles relating to Power Rangers. Edits like his ([8], [9], [10], [11]) were not done in good faith, and I thought he was one of the various reincarnations, and I blocked him. He has not made an edit since being unblocked.
  3. Republicofwiki performed a number of good faith edits, but then suddently decided to voice his opinion at an RfA, and knowing what WP:IAR is.
  4. Deco Da Man had several bad hand sockpuppets that were discovered by Dmcdevit in a check on some random account that vandalized my user talk page. Then he did not write anything in articles.
  5. TheN0ble2 was making articles containing the HD DVD encryption key when it was wrong at the time to do so.
  6. LOrdSteiN was adding an attack site to Tau Gamma Phi
  7. Mmckinnie was an accidental block when trying to deal with vandalism at J.D. Ryan. I unblocked and apologized to this user.
  8. Infodmz and ForPrivacyConcerns were used by other editors to discuss the Daniel Brandt banning/unbanning in privacy. I apologized to anyone I may have disenfranchised in this situation.
  9. HistoryBuffEr left the project and solely kept an attack page up on his user page which was pointed out to me by another administrator. I deleted his userpage, and blocked him. He was unblocked, and he later recreated his userpage as his only edit, claiming vandalism. He did not want to edit, but he persisted to add an attack about "Ziopedia" onto his userpage.
  10. Jason Gastrich was banned due to an arbitration case. Somehow, the way the blocks were set up, his original year long block ended, despite being reset. He was later reblocked by Fred Bauder.
  11. Meisterchef was seriously believed to be a sockpuppet of User:Miracleimpulse and had no other edits other than to support the man. Jimbo e-mailed me and confirmed that he was to unblock Meisterchef because he was not a sockpuppet.
  12. Autocracy's indefinite block I believe was a mistake, because I immediately unblocked and reset for 48 hours. I probably should have warned him.
  13. Xterra1 I thought was a sockpuppet of someone who had been bothering me, and then he harassed me for an apology, which I later gave.
  14. Civilwarguy was writing a hoax article about a supposed ancestor.
  15. AfroPedia is a spam account, intended to write an article about his/her own site.
  16. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen was edit warring and censoring sexuality articles. In two of his edits, he referenced Brian Peppers (we should all know that), and this was on the day that we got a massive influx of vandalism relating to said individual. He then contacted me via IRC, and I explained to him why he was indefblocked, and he told me that he used "Brian Peppers" in edit summaries because "Brian Peppers Day only comes once a year." He then returned under several sockpuppet accounts, I then listed him as banned, but then he was given a second chance by Eagle 101 (I see he added himself to the list, including his "indef blocked for 3RR self defense" thing).
  17. AmendmentNumberOne's block log "User has only existed here to push a single point of view concerning the encryption key; no attempts have been made to edit a single article in the two days that this account was unblocked. This user is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" says everything.
  18. Range blocks I perform are something else entirely. They are very likely due to vandalism that I find operating out of the range, or are ranges that belong to hosting companies and have had open proxies operating out of them (GoDaddy, ThePlanet, etc.).
  19. I don't know why this is listed. It has nothing to do with any other issues.

In nearly all of these situations, I perceived bad faith accounts or accounts that acted in good faith, but were against the whole guidelines and policies. I do recent changes patrolling. When I see questionable edits from entirely new users, and edits that should not be made, nor allow to continue be made, I block. New accounts that blank high profile articles with "fuck" repeated 100 times, new accounts that go directly to some esoteric project page and enter a conversation that they should really know nothing about, or simply new accounts that I find vandalizing articles that I have on my watchlist, I block. Out of my probably several hundred blocks (there's a user subpage somewhere that lists the whole number, and it's probably viewable in some sort of query.php thing), I have made a handful of mistakes. This is essentially what happened with my RFA: out of my over 40000 edits at the time, I made a questionable edit every thousand or so, and that was picked up on as incivility, a violation of some policy I'm not entirely familiar with, or something of the like. Any actual mistake I make, I apologize and move on, and try not to repeat that mistake. In my opinion, this RfC is calling to throw the baby out with the bathwater. No one is perfect, not even with administrative tools. I make no more mistakes than anyone else, and I really think that this RfC is premature, given the fact that I had no ability to reply to The Evil Spartan about my actions concerning the block on Activist4TRUTHinMEDICINE, and some of the administrators who felt that I should be recalled also feel that this RfC is unnecessary.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

  • To Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, I am mentioned no more on that noticeboard than any other administrator.
  • To the "desired outcome"
    • There is no reason I should have to warn a blatant vandal account, such as someone who blanks articles with "fuck you"
    • My IP range blocks on normal ISPs are done to prevent abuse from someone who knows how to go from IP to IP and continues to be a pain in the ass. There is one individual right now that I have to deal with who uses Bell Canada that my blocks on singular IPs do not prevent him from returning.
    • I rarely use the "block e-mail" unless I know it's a sockpuppet of someone, or I later find an influx of e-mail from a single user that constitutes harassment.
    • I am doing my best to work on my trigger finger. I have performed very little blocks on actual users since the commentary on my user talk page, and the blocks I have performed are all within policy.
  • —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Further responses to the other blocks brought up
  • Scissormecirces5's only edit was to essentially spam his youtube video under false pretenses.
  • After the subject of the now deleted article Greg Felton mentioned issues with his page on ANI, I saw it was a speedy candidate. Then "George Felton" recreated the page with disparaging text, claiming he was the individual's brother.
  • TheInformantofInfo created db-bios under various article titles
  • "Trollporn"
  • Borlath's only edits are to spam some City of Heroes fansite. City of Heroes is one of my areas of interest, and there were also a handful of IP addresses performing the same edits.
  • An administrator who can see YourRaajV's deleted user talk (he was the only contributor) will see why I blocked for spamming
  • IP address warning is often fruitless. Page blanking is something I block for if I see multiple instances of it in a short period of time.
  • Nathaniel B. Heraniaos' edits were to his biography, it's AFD, and then citing ED trolls that should be blocked
  • I'm pretty sure I said Civilwarguy was blocked for writing up fake biographies
  • Radfax replaced pages with his band's biography
  • Xterra1 is sufficiently explained, and I cite my mistake on the talk page
  • Omega Big Slim was uploading screenshots under the GFDL
  • Rick lay95 had the same issue, and I explain it to him on his talk page at User_talk:Rick_lay95#Short_block
  • Someone who creates the username "Lololololololololololololololol" shouldn't really be taken seriously
  • Cjmarsicano revoked the GFDL for all of his edits (not just images as The Evil Spartan believes) and stated that he would edit Wikipedia under a Creative Commons, Attribution, Non-Commercial license, which is not compatible with Wikipedia.
  • Gotonow was making up "Unixranger"
  • Pearl necklace jewelry was putting links onto the userpage to some commercial website
  • Bacta was trolling in #wikipedia, and was vandalizing on site. It was requested I block him (deleted contributions show this)
  • You spin me round baby right round like a record's deleted contributions show that it is a vandalism block as well as a username block

—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The last one is also a very obvious meatspin troll - Alison ☺ 21:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that User:Gen. von Klinkerhoffen has an entire closet of sock accounts. See Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Gen._von_Klinkerhoffen - Alison ☺ 22:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Irrelevant. There was zero socks before Ryulong blocked me indefinitely, so you cannot justify his block with events after the blocking. Moreover, it was not malicious or abusive "sockpuppetry". I've explained on user page of each created sock who I am and why I'm doing what I'm doing (check history of user pages, Ryulong/other people have replaced original content with template about socks). Each sock was created after previous account has been blocked, so there wasn't possibility to edit using two different accounts at the same time. (Check block log and creation log of all socks if you don't believe me.) By the way - I see some IP in this category -- why? Gen. von Klinkerhoffen 17:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Since you added Anonyymi, I guess I'll have to say that he was blocked because of the lolicon Wikipe-tan picture that he uploaded.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The user on the IP address has been harping at me for the past two weeks because of information I had no access to when performing a block on what I thought was an IP belonging to a sockpuppeteer that I was only familiar enough with concerning the discussion that the individual on the IP had entered. The IP was later unblocked, and then proceeded to leave messages on my talk page demanding an apology, and I would have rather just moved on. I told him to leave me be, but it appears that he has not heeded that request.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I did not 'harp' at you for the past two weeks. When I was unblocked, finally, I asked you at that time for an apology[12] and you redacted that request without comment.[13] I replaced it [14] commenting that I was asking for an apology and that shouldn't be removed,[15] and you removed it a second time[16] with the edit comment "enough". I left a final comment on your talk page expressing that I was going to another admin because all I wanted was an apology and you kept removing the text[17]. You removed that last post, cursed at me ("My removal of your comments should be a hint as to drop the damn issue") and told me to leave you be on my talk page,[18], so I complained to another admin and "left you be" with no further posts on your talk page! I said nothing else to you at all, save a reply on my talk page. That's hardly 'harping' at you for two weeks. I comment here because this is evidently a pattern of behaviour that needs to be addressed. I did nothing wrong to deserve a block; there was no vandalism, no faulty username, no inappropriate behaviour, no rule breaking. You jumped the gun and wrongly assumed that I must be the banned user (even though it was pointed out before I was blocked that I live in a different part of the world), and blocked me for a week without warning. That block was overturned rightly, and again, it would have been simpler, and resolved the matter with me completely, if you had merely said "I'm sorry; I made a mistake", rather than compound your error with disrespectful behaviour. [Addendum: Regarding Ryulong's edit comment: "I kindly asked this individual to leave me be" - came after you removed my request several times, and then cursed at me. "I had no idea concerning the case, I just saw similar edits." - there was one "similar"ity where the same citation on the same article was used, but my contribution quoted the source directly without any added commentary, completely different than the banned user with a stated agenda. If you did not have any 'idea concerning the case", then you shouldn't be applying the block, and certainly not without warning.] 121.208.181.37 16:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Absolutely, this RfC is far too premature to be of any use, and Ryulong's actions are easily justified. ^demon[omg plz] 03:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Ryulong often asks me to consult on his blocks; that Bell Canada block is regrettable but unavoidable. He does good work and clearly doesn't have a problem explaining his actions. Mackensen (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by pschemp

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Sorry, but warning is not a pre-requisite for blocking, especially in the case of clear vandals and username violations. Some of the claims here are a bit over the top. Ryulong has been over-zealous at times, and should voluntarily put thought into blocks before he acts upon them, but that doesn't mean every action he takes is incorrect. Asking him to consider his actions carefully in the future should suffice.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. pschemp | talk 21:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kurykh 22:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Mackensen (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. — Malcolm (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. A few questionable calls out of zillions is no reason to cripple one of our most valuable vandal-fighters, Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Ryulong is doing an excellent job. Keep up the good work. Burntsauce 23:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Krimpet 01:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Ryulong has been somewhat trigger-happy (to appearances) in the past, but he has recently started slowing down. I think pschemp says it wwell with, "Ryulong has been over-zealous at times, and should voluntarily put thought into blocks before he acts upon them". Be more careful with potentially controversial blocks, and ask for other admin opinions on those. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. He does an excellent job. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. Unfortunately RFCs are never raised to illicit and discuss the positive contributions that editors make. Having waded through Ryulong's recent investigation into sockpuppetry across multiple projects I can safely say that the positive administrative contributions far outweigh the occasional trigger happiness. And deep down, despite AGF, most of us can spot a mile off the accounts that will never, ever make a single positive contribution. Ryulong blocks them quickly and moves on. --Stephen 1-800-STEVE 09:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. Strongly support BlueSapphires 17:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  13. I wholeheartedly agree. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 18:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  14. Cheers, Lights 20:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  15.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  16. —« ANIMUM » 01:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  17. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  18. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC) I totally agree. Ryulong can be overzealous. But I think we need to give him some leeway. And yes I agree. I'm not sure where this "required warnings" thing came from but it's not true. It's case by case. Always has been. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  19. Aye. I made such a request not that long ago and Ryulong's action already appear more cautious to me. WjBscribe 15:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  20. Yes; warnings are not always necessary; in many of the cases listed in the complaint, Ryulong acted properly; but that's not to say there are no valid issues here. MastCell Talk 18:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  21. DurovaCharge! 23:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  22. As per WJBscribe, and I also don't feel that warnings are always necessary. That said, I also agree with MastCell (here, and below). Andre (talk) 07:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  23. Yes. Acalamari 19:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  24. Tim Q. Wells 06:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  25. ~ Wikihermit 14:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  26. I concur. Sr13 is almost Singularity 18:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  27. Ral315 » 03:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by GRBerry

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

I recall the RfA. A large part of the opposition in the RfA was due to concern that the block button would be used to quickly. And now we have an RfC with evidence of it.

Archived discussion at User talk:Ryulong/Archive 14#Recall reveals that multiple administrators considered recalling him for his blocking activity earlier this month. Ryulong's standard for recall is 5 significant contributors; he reached four admins who thought recall was in Wikipedia's best interest very quickly, then they backed off once he began discussion.

I think Ryulong needs to actively slow down his blocking and use more thought or he will end up desysopped eventually. He does a tremendous amount of good, but I'd rather see him do 50% to 75% as much good each day for a longer period of time. Even with fewer good blocks, there will be fewer incorrect blocks, and less discussion about marginal blocks (especially if his explanations also improve). GRBerry 02:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. GRBerry 02:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Only as far as I interpret, reduce quantity, increase accuracy. Navou banter 03:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Ryulong does some awesome work & it's a dirty and unpopular job, but he can be waaay too trigger-happy for my comfort. I cannot comment as to percentages but IMO, he needs to be more thoughtful with the block button. There's nothing more off-putting for a misguided newbie than an over-swift banhammer. I think he needs to chill just a bit & maybe give more folks due process as it's surprising sometimes how some editors can get turned around at the last minute - Alison ☺ 03:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. I also agree with this summary. I'd rather see a smaller amount of correct/good contributions than having things get out of hand. I think Ryulong has the good of Wikipedia at hear, but I also think that more careful consideration of his actions would lead to better actions overall. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Jmlk17 05:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Catchpole 06:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. The Rambling Man 06:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. --Ghirla-трёп- 11:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Ryulong clearly does valuable work. But we should not shy away from constructive criticism simply because someone does good work; it's assumed that every editor does valuable work, otherwise they would not be an editor. Hopefully he'll take the criticism offered here constructively and the situation will never need go any further than this RFC. Friday (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Jaranda wat's sup 17:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. I also agree. Step back and count to ten before hitting the 'block' button, and all will be well. - KrakatoaKatie 19:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. As above. Picaroon (t) 20:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  13. Don't bite the newcomers. Please. - Bennyboyz3000 07:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  14. Agree, and expanded in my comments below. MastCell Talk 18:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  15. I also think that this viewpoint sounds reasonable. In any case, best wishes to everyone and I hope a pleasant solution arises. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  16. I agree. I don't believe that Ryulong should be desysopped at this point, just that he should make at least some attempt to engage people before blocking and express a willingness to explain his actions, and to apologize if he makes a mistake. He does a lot of valuable work, and to completely de-sysop him would be too extreme at this time. Communication is always best. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  17. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 04:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  18. Endorse with the caveat that I don't think this RFC is necessary, as these concerns were raised to Ryulong by myself, WJBscribe, A Man in Black, The Rambling Man, et al. very recently. Andre (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  19. Endorse. Ryulong is simply being asked to stop hitting the block button so quickly; the world will not end if we wait a few seconds. The Evil Spartan 16:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  20. Don't bite the newcomers. 0reteki 22:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  21. Anchoress 05:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  22. What Friday said. Plus, I'm somewhat dismayed by the number of established editors who jumped into wikilawyering about whether the complainants crossed all t's and dotted all i's, instead of considering the underlying issues. Zocky | picture popups 03:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  23. T Rex | talk 02:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC) I'm not quite sure where to put this, but blocking User:Isissilvermoon27 indefinitely for "spam" for posting this just really looks awful. Sorry for not knowing where to put this. T Rex | talk 06:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
    Umm - it looks like someone was soliciting money here in the exact same manner as email scammers do. There is also the matter of a deleted page - Alison ☺ 07:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
    My mistake. T Rex | talk 09:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  24. Haemo 03:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  25. He's fast and does a lot of good work for the 'pedia. But being over-zealous also loses us valuable contributors. Vandalism is not a bad thing in itself, people should be encouraged to vandalise and notice the "edit this page" link. Once they discover the joys of constructive editing, their energies can be easily channelised into productivity for Wikipedia. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside ramblings by Mackensen

From a dispute resolution perspective, jumping into an RfC before giving the user a chance to respond is not especially good form, but that's been addressed for now so I'll let it pass. My concern the other part of Evil Spartan's remark, which I'll quote in full:

You have once again blocked a good faith user without the slightest bit of warning: User:Activist4TRUTHinMEDICINE . While his username may be a problem (as was his editing history), you didn't warn him or anything. And this is scant days after people had just said that you are >< close to pushing it far enough for an admin recall, and you agreed to start warning people. Not only that, but you're continuing to block huge swaths of IPs as open proxies indefinitely, and blocking user's email on the first block (this should be a last resort). What the heck is your issue? I don't have a lot of time, but I'm now going to open up an RFC - the only reason no one did it before is because it takes too much time. The Evil Spartan 19:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[19]

The indefinite blocking of open proxies is policy. The impression I get here is that the Evil Spartan expects Ryulong to start warning open proxies before he blocks them. That would certainly be a new departure. I'm also left wondering about the reasoning of someone who acknowledges 1) an inappropriate username and 2) a bad editing history while denouncing the blocking administrator for inappropriate activities.

Sure, Ryulong is quicker on the block button than some, but it's because this is so that most other sysops can kick back and relax. I'm left with the unavoidable impression of sour grapes. As a final note, Videmus Omnia (talk · contribs) ought to be grateful; not all former sockpuppeteers are allowed to come in from the cold. That Ryulong did so, without revealing your prior identity, showed tact and judgement.

I expect nothing of the sort, Mackensen. My problem is Ryulong blocking ridiculously large swaths of proxies: blocking entire /16 ranges, etc. I have some techinical knowledge, and I heavily doubt these are all open proxies (especially given the unblock requests that have been handled in them. The Evil Spartan 15:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
We've encountered and blocked such ranges before; it's unusual to be sure but hardly unheard of. Mackensen (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Mackensen (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. DurovaCharge! 23:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Ryan Postlethwaite

I think Ryulong is quite strict to when it comes to using the block button, the major problem here is due to the fact that he doesn't wait till the "required" four warnings have been given to users. If people are here to cause trouble, it's often blatantly obvious, and Ryulong hit's them early. In my opinion, Ryulongs does the job that would have to be done a few edits down the line anyway, and saves us all the hassle of clearing up the mess that disruptive users are here to cause. Obviously, there's a few he's got wrong, but Ryulong does a hell of a lot of blocks - so it's obvious mistakes are going to be made every now and again. All in all, Ryulong does a good job as an administrator, and with a little more thought before a some of his blocks, he will be even better.

A short rebuttal (I don't know which section to put this in). I'm not implying that; if you think I'm implying that, I'm not sure if you're reading my comments. By all means, some users could and even should be blocked without a warning. However, I looked through Ryulong's block log, and in the multitude of blocks I saw in the past 3 weeks, there were 0 warnings he issued - including several for good faith users. This bit about implying four warnings is a red herring - by implying that the problem is that Ryulong hasn't issued four warnings, then you're ignoring the bulk of times when no warnings were issued. Or do you really think that all those blocks, without warnings, of good faith users, were acceptable (for which he only begrudgingly apologizes, if at all)? The Evil Spartan 19:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Cheers, Lights 22:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. I myself would block with two warnings, at most three. Four is just delaying the inevitable. —Kurykh 03:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. --Stephen 1-800-STEVE 16:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. DurovaCharge! 23:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. Indeed. Acalamari 19:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  9. 0reteki 22:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  10. ~ Wikihermit 14:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  11. You do not have to assume good faith when the vandals have already proven the contrary. —« ANIMUM » 02:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by JamesMLane

I'm commenting to address an issue that's closely related to the subject of the RfC: the removal of talk-page criticisms. My involvement is that I made this post to WP:AN/I flagging 121.208.181.37 as a probable sockpuppet, which resulted in Ryulong's block (#20 in the list above of "Examples of failing to warn users before block"). As noted above, after the user was unblocked, s/he complained on Ryulong's talk page, but Ryulong twice removed these comments ([20][21]), and removed the anon's complaint about the removals ([22]). The editors who, shortly thereafter, addressed possible recall on Ryulong's talk page didn't mention this incident. Because Ryulong removed the comments, some of them may have been unaware of it.

It's even more troubling that Ryulong initially removed mention of the incident from this RfC ([23]).

I'm not addressing the propriety of the initial block. My point is that admins shouldn't suppress criticism of their admin actions. We non-admins are entitled to expect, at a minimum, transparency and accountability in the exercise of admin powers. While Ryulong's annoyance at the anon IP's persistence is understandable, he should have either answered the criticisms on his talk page or ignored them. Admins sometimes need to have a thick skin. My desired outcome is that Ryulong be more willing to allow criticisms to remain visible in appropriate places (his talk page or RfC), even if he considers them meritless. JamesMLane t c 11:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if Ryulong was "annoyed", but all I asked for, very respectfully, was a simple apology. If he had said, "I'm sorry", he would have never heard from me regarding the matter again. I am not a sockpuppet; I am one of many that volunteer their contributions here in good faith (I am not new, only the IP has changed and I'm not interested in creating a silly id name because it isn't about me, it's about the contribution). Ryulong has admitted here that he didn't have all the facts before the block, so why the profanity afterward instead of an apology? Admins should have a kind heart toward those they have wronged. I can tell you that I was far more "annoyed" by being blocked for a week without him warning me, without cause, and then without even the courtesy of apology when the block was rightly reversed by another admin. Again, how difficult is it to say "I'm sorry; I made a mistake" instead of "Drop it and leave me be". [24] 121.208.181.37 16:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. "Drop it and leave me be" would've been fine if posted as a response under your comment. Then everyone else coming to the page would know there was a dispute, and they could judge for themselves who was right. It's the attempted suppression of that information that bothers me. JamesMLane t c 21:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I was not sure that individuals on IPs who may possibly be a sockpuppet (even though it was later disproved), and particularly one that editted in a harassing way, should have been allowed to make a comment on this RFC. I later gave a response to his points brought up. Really, this has nothing to do with this, and should be moved to the talk page. There is no summary being made here. Just something that happened.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not "nothing to do with this". I called it "closely related" because the RfC is about blocks, and my comment is about the handling of criticisms of those same blocks. Admins should go out of their way to receive and consider criticisms of their use of admin powers. If the criticism comes from someone who's been accused of something or other in the past, you can consider how that affects the weight to be given to that particular comment.
A common thread here is a suggestion that you give more consideration to the possibility that your first take on a situation isn't the whole story. You can give a warning and see what the effect is, you can leave a criticism posted and see if others agree with it, etc. "None of us is as smart as all of us." JamesMLane t c 05:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, I've shown above that I didn't edit in a harassing manner, or violate any rules at all. Crying harassment after deleting benign requests for apology, and after cursing at me, is disingenuous. The fact that I'm on an IP does not mean that I am a second class citizen worthy of disrespect. I've done nothing wrong, and creating a username is encouraged, not mandatory. As such, I should be afforded the same level of respect, unless I had shown that I didn't deserve it by actions that actually violated a rule somewhere. Even then, a warning would be the appropriate response, aside from blatant vandalism. 121.208.181.37 09:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Apology accepted (see talk) 121.208.181.37 14:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Madman bum and angel

Unfortunately, I do feel that Ryulong is indeed rather hair trigger with blocks. In the interests of full disclosure, I must note that I have been affected by two of Ryulong's blocks; the first was when I was editing using a semi-automated tool and a curious editor opened an AN/I thread examining the possibility that I was running an unauthorized bot; Ryulong assumed I was, and blocked me indefinitely. I wasn't, in fact, and if Ryulong had read my talk page, he would have seen that other administrators were polite enough to inquire as to how I was editing so efficiently; my answers satisfied them [25]. It took me 1 1⁄2 hours to get unblocked, and I was notified by the unblocking admin that I would have to limit my edit rate to four edits/minute in the future or make a BRFA. I did so, for semi-automated tools, and have tried as hard as I could to limit my edit rate, though it is difficult.

The second block by which I was affected was an IP range block on an entire class B network owned by GoDaddy, Inc. The block reason is {{blockedproxy}}, which is greatly misleading; not every IP in that range is an open proxy -- in fact, GoDaddy's terms of service prohibit open proxies, GoDaddy detects customers running open proxies, and GoDaddy suspends their accounts. I have a dedicated server hosted by GoDaddy and have always used that server as a closed proxy (using SSH tunneling) when I'm on an insecure network. I attempted to have my own server's IP unblocked twice, before I registered this account. The first time, it was declined by Yamla (talk · contribs). When I added another request with further information, Ryulong (talk · contribs) reverted it and noted, "This IP belongs to GoDaddy. GoDaddy is not an ISP. No one should be editting from a GoDaddy IP" [26]. This statement was a ridiculous generalization and unfounded in policy, but it seemed futile to continue discussion after I requested clarification on the talk page and no one answered. A couple days ago, I requested an unblock again so that I could run stable MadmanBot tasks on the dedicated server – that one IP has since been unblocked.

While both blocks may have been justified (the first more than the second), Ryulong's aggressive attitude concerning his blocks has and does concern me. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 16:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I do absolutely think that Ryulong is a good administrator and that he does great work. But I just think he needs to be a little less aggressive in doing it. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 17:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by MastCell

Ryulong is a workhorse and takes on a lot of thankless administrative tasks, for which I'm grateful. He's made some difficult but completely appropriate blocks, which I also appreciate. I think that the drama-generating aspect of the situation is that he is heavy-handed on the block button, on one far end of the admin bell curve. I've noticed a tendency to assert authority and give a Power Answer, and perhaps a little bit of over-sensitivity to criticism or trolling.

Example: the block of User:Velocicaptor, discussed here. This guy was blocked for 24 hours by another admin for fair-use violations and inflammatory user-talk posts. He began removing warnings etc from his talk page; Ryulong warned him not to remove these warnings or he'd be blocked. The user removed Ryulong's warning, and was indef-blocked because "he just did what I told him not to do." Which ignores the fact that users are generally free to remove messages from their own user talk pages, as I do and Ryulong does, etc. The handling of the situation struck me as a bit power-trippy.

Example 2: It came to my attention a while back that the page Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryulong was salted, by Ryulong himself, back in February. The page itself was not protected, and it was not transcluded from Wikipedia:Protected titles, but was transcluded from a private list of salted pages which Ryulong maintains in his userspace. While I don't dispute the fact that he was trolled, deleting and salting your own RfC page, using a private salting list, for 4 months is highly irregular. Basically, a non-admin would have to figure out the unorthodox salting method and then ask Ryulong for his permission to create an RfC on him. To Ryulong's credit, when I mentioned this to him he immediately un-salted the page, and here we are.

Bottom line: Ryulong does a lot of good work. RfC's tend to focus on the negative, which is unfortunate. We can all do better; in his case, I think cutting down on volume a little and posting blocks of logged-in users with some constructive contribs for review might be helpful. We should avoid blocking people solely because "I told you not to do that and you did it anyway", when their actions are otherwise appropriate. We should not react to criticism, whether constructive or trollish, by deleting and salting our own RfC's. It sounds like Ryulong has taken the feedback he's gotten seriously, so let's give him a chance to work on it. MastCell Talk 16:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. - Alison ☺ 17:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Andre (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Sean William @ 00:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Tim Q. Wells 06:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Stephan Schulz 06:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. Melsaran 03:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Altiris Exeunt 02:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by 0reteki

Admins are supposed to interact with the community as if they were normal users, and not talk and behave as if they were superior. I think it should be noted that Ryulong does not do this sometimes. Check out his archives and discussions for more on that. I'll add some examples later on.0reteki 23:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I told you exactly what the issue was. You were not adding a new section to the bottom of my talk page, and then you put in this comment. I blocked you for only 15 minutes after you kept replacing that message on my talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I admit that it was my mistake of not adding comments to the bottom of your page, but you archived my comment before hearing me out. You could have at least moved it to the bottom of your page for further discussion. You admitted on your Discussion page that by archiving a discussion you believe it to be settled, but didn't even really begin.0reteki 21:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, Ryulong needs to needs to ease up on his strict control of the 4chan article. That page has reached a state of virtual stagnation because of Ryulong's reverts. While other articles on online communities, such as slashdot, describe specific sections of their respective site, Ryulong won't stop reverting any edits concerning any board other than /b/(The "Random" Board), on 4chan. We are encouraged to be bold, but I don't see how that works out with this admin's tight grip of this article. 0reteki 22:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
This is unrelated to anything. I opened up a discussion on the talk page, and the page is not in "stagnation" nor am I in control of the content. At most, I don't want the front page screen updated with each update of the main page, and the gets are unnecessary to keep track of. Again, the discussion on the talk page is for you to add to, and then consensus controls whether or not /c/ and other boards are added.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. You shouldn't block an editor whom you have a dispute with. Ask another admin to do so instead. And you blocked him without any warning. Melsaran 15:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by BlueSapphires

This seems to be a pattern for Videmus Omnia

Ryulong apolgized (immediately), but Videmus Omnia seemed to not be able to get over it. Ryulong blocked Videmus Omnia blocked, two days later (also without warning) by Ryulong, for a very good reason (harassing three editors by marking for deletion all/most of their images - after they said or did something he didn't like). That block led to an appropriate ANI (two actually). I contend that this is a RFC of retribution , mostly because I've been dealing with a series of retribution attacks by Videmus Omnia all week - first noted by Man in Black on the ANI. Videmus Omnia also RFCcomment and RFC'ed Alkivar. I "met" Videmus Omnia while he was attacking a newbie notable author/director. Shortly after, I saw the Alkivar/RFC, where I made quite a scene about his multi-modal attacks, mostly because how angry I was over what Videmus Omnia did to Mr. Renner, whos a distinguished person (also I hadn't much experience with disputes, and didn't know protocol). I just noticed this RFC. I can't believe it. I know we are supposed to stick to the issue of Ryulong (and I support the input of pschemp), but this RFC has been called by someone who has been quite disruptive. I've been on five other discussion boards - all disputes raised by Videmus Omnia, all of them seemingly retributive for small slights, attempting to contextualize in light of his instigating behavior, and now this. Videmus Omnia is 6 weeks on Wikipedia, but apparently has morphed logins, so he should know better. This is thin-skinned. For Videmus Omnia to have, in six weeks, RFC'd two admins and gained two ANIs for vindictive deletions is remarkable. It seems that people are impressed with his image garnering capabilities, but I don't feel that this give Videmus Omnia a right to follow anyone who's mildly offended him, and to use every rule possible - including his image tagging role - to exact revenge.

This really has nothing to do with anything being discussed. It is a comment on Videmus Omnia's workings. Not on mine.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Petri Krohn

Administrators in general seem to be too reluctant to issue blocks. Self-evident vandals sometime get blocked, but what I call "hate groups disguised as content disputes" are free to roam Wikipedia, harrasing good faith editors and disrupting whole sections of the encyclopedia. One of these edit warriors can do more damage to Wikipedia than a hundred established editors can do good.

Of the few examples of blocks I am familiar with, I can say I fully endorse all of them. As for the problem case, I do not think a great deal of harm is done if the wrong editor is blocked for a few days. Even the indefinete blocks seem to have solved themselve out. (Thanks to Jimbo, in some cases.) If a good faith editor is blocked for a few days, he will most likely consider it a well earned wikibreak. Those that come here (or to other forums) to complain, are most likely edit warriors pushing their POV agendas. I do not think they should be editing Wikipedia at all.

I say: block first and ask questions later. -- Petri Krohn 01:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, Mr. Krohn, in your last sentence, did you mean to say that 'you think that they should not edit Wikipedia at all'? I've changed it for greater clarity; feel free to revert the change. -- Altiris Exeunt 09:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
You shouldn't edit others' comments, so it has been reverted. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 14:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
No. Never "block first and ask questions later". Block logs are preserved forever, and no block should be made in haste. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 14:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.