User talk:Ryulong/Archive 103

|This revert
Ryulong, to answer your question, this is doxing / outing because it's not on his userpage at all. I checked the history of his page, he gives a link to a gaming website he runs, but that's it. He never says he writes for the examiner. Please self-revert as I am under a 1RR agreement. KoshVorlon  Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 20:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 23:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ryulong. I've left a note on that same page about the redaction and have told them that if they're upset, talk to me, not you.

Thanks again ! KoshVorlon  Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 00:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * His current userpage mentions writing for the examiner in the past, and one of his most recent diffs explicitly mentions what column he wrote along with his name. He uses the same username everywhere, has additionally voluntarily disclosed links to his Twitter account in the past without seeking redaction (since his examiner column links his twitter account,) and this content is materially relevant to the block.  Personal information voluntarily disclosed that reveals both a COI and offsite canvassing does not fall under WP:OUTING. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Then re-revert KoshVorlon.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 03:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I did, I just figured I'd mention it here too. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

CN¥ vs RMB
Hi! I had to revert your change at. Major changes to templates used in many articles should be discussed before the change is made. If you feel a change is needed, then please feel free to re-open the discussion. I will obey whatever the consensus is at the end of the discussion (remembering that no consensus means no change).  Stepho  talk 02:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see it use in that many pages but okay.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 03:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Length of Arbcom Evidence
The standard limits ArbCom evidence submissions are 1000 words. I count your evidence submission currently at 1619 words (not counting rebuttal). Just thought you might want to know so you can trim it down a bit (or you can request more room). --Obsidi (talk)06:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to cut down.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 06:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ugh all I cut out was rebuttal.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 09:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
You recently proposed deletion for my new page List of The Amazing Race records, I knew at the beginning that it wasn't gonna be a high standard article, but I didn't expected that is so bad that it should be deleted, instead of you going around and asking for not so perfect pages to be deleted, you should've help on making them better, cause that I think it's the purpose of Wikipedia, many people can work together to bring quality informational articles. I may not had the best structured article but I believe my article has a good subject and I tried on written it and sourced as good as I can, but I don't figure what was so bad that it couldn't just be fixed and needed deletion. I saw many articles that don't have enough sources, but are not proposed for deletion, so I'm unclear where I did wrong. DCF94 (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is the definition of Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. There is no need to have an article that lists this trivia. It's nothing wrong with structure. It's the proposed content.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 19:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Legendary Moonlight Sculptor
Could you take a look at the article. I don't understand why the Graphic novel list template goes to the right and is so small. It looks good in page preview. Bgwhite (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No one closed off the Infobox animanga setup.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 21:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Bgwhite (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Evidence limit
Your evidence section is well over the limit of 1000 words. I am still checking to see whether the limit is inclusive of responses to others, but even if those are excepted, you are over the limit. You either need explicit permission from one of the drafting arbs, or you need to trim your evidence. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I just learned that the drafting arbs are thinking through what to do about evidence limits. One possibility is an increase, so feel free to hold off making a change at this time. I hope to have more advice soon.For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I did ask Roger Davies but he never answered.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 00:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Fredrick Brennan
Did I sufficiently answer your question on my talk page? Can you answer mine - in other words it wasn't obvious that he's notable enough for an individual article? Anything I should improve? --GRuban (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Unsupported allegations
My post wasn't ambiguous. Don't make allegations that aren't supported by evidence, don't restore the same when they're removed by an uninvolved admin. I've blocked you for 12 hours (it would have been longer, but I don't want to suppress any party's participation in arbitration case for longer than necessary). I'll unblock you if you agree not to make any further such allegations and not to restore any content removed by an uninvolved admin. If the evidence is private, submitting it privately will suffice; drawing public conclusions based on private evidence is inappropriate and you know it—it's exactly the kind of thing you've been subjected to, and admins have been just as quick to stamp on that. You can of course use unblock to request a second admin review this, and any arb or clerk can over-rule me if they see fit. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is directly related to my evidence sent to the committee. I perhaps need evidence in my section on his behavior on site but fine. I will not restore that statement again.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 17:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If the evidence cna't be posted on-wiki, nor can conclusions based on it. If you've submitted it to ArbCom privately, surely you can submit your conclusions and analysis of it privately as well? Since you've agreed not to restore it, I've unblocked you so you can participate in the case. Regards, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain conclusions can be made on the evidence provided in emails to the committee.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 17:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ryu, if I may offer advice, these are times when cooler heads need to prevail. Even if you were right, reverting an admin action on an Arb page is kind of a bright line thing that't you're really never going to win.  Pretend we're in Highmaul and we're dealing with the mechanics of a boss encounter; we may think a certain ability or attack is unfair, but that opinion isn't going to counter the wallop if you don't approach it the right way. Tarc (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've never played WoW.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 19:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Then pretend we're Ichigo fighting Ulquiorra. :) (still my favorite fight of the whole series) Anyways, point is, you gotta pick your battles carefully here, and starting to edit-war (yes, 1 revert isn't an actual war) was just gonna be lose-lose all around. Tarc (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate evidence limits
The arbs are leaning toward a doubling of the usual limits on evidence for this specific case. I am still waiting for final sign-off, but it seems likely that most participants will not need to trim evidence. Three relevant points:
 * Given the substantial increase in limits, the usual acceptance if counts go a bit over will not be granted. Treat the limits as absolute.
 * The limits apply to both direct evidence and rebuttal to others.
 * Despite the increase, it is highly desirable to be as succinct as possible. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ryulong, you should have seen this coming--I have been forced to block you for a short period of time for edit warring. More details on the AN3 page. Will you please not let it get this far next time? Drmies (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I requested be spp'd for a week already but it was declined and that would have prevented the report. That IP has been up my ass and threatened me to where I contacted WMF legal over it. Why am I blocked when I made one revert on the IP's talk page? And why is that IP still allowed to edit when he is WP:NOTHERE?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 03:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Because apparently it's not such an easy matter. If you hadn't gotten into the business of reverting and warning needlessly (=edit warring) you could have been helping the case. You were blocked for edit warring, not 3RR, by the way. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * semi'd the article; I was just about to do it. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I asked the IP to stop giving those notifications to people because I got that stupid red number up each time he did it. I logged back in to see 6 notifications because of him.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 03:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a -- pardon my French -- really stupid reason to revert them. Promise to be less boneheaded and I'll unblock you immediately. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well you're right, it's not a reason but they were still unnecessary (the red number is still effing annoying though). So long as that IP's blocked I think I'll be okay on boneheadedness.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 03:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for engaging in baiting and other disruptive activity with little to no effort to write an encyclopedia. I agree this is baiting. But you knew it was baiting and you bit anyways. You are no newbie and I cannot argue against this block, you know better. Don't let people manipulate you so easily. Chillum 03:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So was I supposed to ignore the AN3 report?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 03:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If you cannot see what went wrong even in hindsight then I cannot help you. Hint, you were blocked for edit warring not for responding to a report. Chillum 03:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So I was supposed to ignore the bait that spammed my Special:Notifications then— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 03:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. And in any case, reverting them after you've received the notification doesn't change a thing. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  04:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Every time he restored the notification on other talk pages I got re-notified.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 04:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

How does reverting help stop the notifications? If anything it caused more notifications because you got reverted. Think about it. Chillum 04:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * He reverted to restore the notifications so how am I supposed to deal with that?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 04:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Another troll is fucking with me now.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 04:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I suggest you take a walk. Trolls are fucking with you because you are feeding them with your reactions. Chillum 04:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well could you block the account? It's an LTA issue.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 04:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ryulong.... stop... read Chillum's above post again. Read it a thousand times until you understand that the trolls continue to harass you because you feed them with your reactions. Unless you are blocked, rarely a day goes by when you are not actively involved in these sock matters. You feed and perpetuate the problems you face while complaining of your inability to resolve the problem. Your compulsion and inability to ignore the situation only allows it to continue. You may not like it, but your reactions are half the problem and the troll is the other. You are well-aware of WP:DENY but you ignore its advice. Stop giving them the responses they crave and it will cease. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * All I did to the LTA one is rollback the edits made because he keeps blanking out all my work at the particular articles. These other trolls are just piggybacking on GG.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 05:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate arbitration case: evidence and workshop
In the interests of making this case more easily manageable, it is likely that we will prune the parties list to limit it to those against whom evidence has been submitted. Therefore, if anyone has anything to add, now is the time to do so.

See the list of parties not included in the evidence as of 8 Dec 14.

Please note that the purpose of the /Evidence page is to provide narrative, context and all the diffs. As diffs can usually be interpreted in various ways, to avoid ambiguity, they should be appended to the allegation that's being made. If the material is private and the detail has been emailed to ArbCom, add [private evidence] instead of diffs.

The /Workshop page builds on evidence. FOFs about individual editors should contain a summary of the allegation made in /Evidence, and diffs to illustrate the allegation. Supplying diffs makes it easier for the subject of the FOF to respond and much easier for arbitrators to see whether your FOF has substance.

No allegations about other editors should be made either in /Evdence or in the /Workshop without supporting diffs. Doing so may expose you to findings of making personal attacks and casting aspersions.

Also, please note that the evidence lengths have been increased from about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for parties and about 500 words and about diffs for non-parties to a maximum of 2000 words and 200 diffs for parties and 1000 words and 100 diffs for non-parties. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk)


 * K— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 06:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Noticed You Thought FNAF 2 Was A Sequel, Not A Prequel
I have reason to believe that you reverted an edit on the FNAF 2 article because someone mentioned that the game was a prequel, but you changed it to a sequel. Just wanting to let you know, the game is a prequel. Have you looked through Night 5's paycheck? It states that you were given this on 1987, which proves that the game is a prequel because the Phone Guy mentions about the "Bite of '87" in the first game, and on the second, you were given a paycheck on the exact same year. Unless the Phone Guy had a time travel device, then this game would be a prequel. Although, I'm assuming you don't know what a prequel is exactly. I recommend you check out the prequel article. Mohamed Boutaleb   |  talk  16:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:Talk page stalker. A prequel is by definition a sequel so calling it a sequel is not incorrect. All of your reasoning above is original research. If an editor wants to call it a prequel on the WP article then they need to find a reliable source that calls it that and cite it. — Strongjam (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is game #2 in the series so that makes it a sequel regardless of any canonical time shenanigans.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 20:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia genealogy project
Just wondering if you have any thoughts re: the idea of WMF hosting a genealogy project. If so, feel free to contribute to this discussion. And apologies if I have made this request before. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Zombie?
How can I have been a zombie account? I know I was never active in the way you're active, but I've consistently watched a modest number of pages for years and years. Gamergate wasn't even a big deal -- it was simply, for me, the last straw. I'm not a zombie now in any case: I'm a vocal detractor and former editor. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I said you come close but not quite fit the mold.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 23:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that a number of our zombies had (for example) edited zero or one page before the recent eruption. I believe I had something like 1500 edits, chiefly in the area of my professional expertise.  But whatever. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * All I said was you sort of came close because they're suspicious of why there are only pro examples rather than no anti.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 17:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Mark, please stop discussing this here. You are banned "from all edits and all discussions related to Gamergate controversy, broadly construed, not including participation in ArbCom cases". This talk page is not part of Arbcom, so it is in violation of your ban. I'm not going to issue a block to enforce it at this time, but if you continue to discuss GG-related topics outside of WP:ARBGG, i'll have no choice. The Wordsmith Talk to me 02:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

global vandalism user
hi, and thanks , plz check this and support , thanks --Florence (talk) 09:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't act on it, only revert it.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 09:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you revert yourself on Fredrick Brennan?
Specifically this edit. I don't want to edit war - especially as someone (you, in fact!) noted right at the top of the article talk page that the article is under General Sanctions - but you have repeated a reversion, which I think might violate that.

I see your reasoning about notability in your comment, and I realize we're discussing what is and what is notable now on the AFD page, so I won't argue the notability bit here. But proving notability is not the point of the lead, the wp:lead needs to summarize the article content, and without mentioning brittle bone disease it's not a very good article summary. Whether or not that matters for notability. Don't you agree? After all, over half the article doesn't touch at all on 8chan. But it is quite a bit about his OI. --GRuban (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not presently under any of the sanctions in question so there's really nothing wrong. People disagree with you. You need to accept consensus.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 00:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The recent arrival from 8chan
You know he's only here to taunt you, right? The color choice for his sig isn't insignificant either. Just don't let him get under your skin and provide more insipid fodder for the Evidence page. This isn't a judgement on you or your actions so don't take it that way, it's just that IMO the junk provided by TDA and a few others about grand admin collusion and conspiracies is falling hard and flat. Let that be the narrative of this case and not dilute it by having to interact with single-purpose-accounts. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My recent proposed remedy is also causing pause.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 19:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

IP User Impersonating You?
This caught my eye, Special:Diff/638553235, looks like an IP user impersonating you. — Strongjam (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * He copied what I left on his user talk to TRPOD's.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 22:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Interaction ban
You are prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Cla68 on the GamerGate arbitration case pages with the following exceptions: You may submit evidence about Cla68 and may submit workshop proposals about Cla68. This is a clerk action an may be appealed to the clerks or to the arbs. Non-compliance with this interaction ban will lead to your ban from the entire case and/or your block from the project. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  03:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Two way Interaction ban proposal
Hey, I'm not exactly sure how I was meant to do this, given that the last IBAN request in this case was done through a clerk's talk page. But I guess I should probably notify you that I brought it up as a topic for discussion here. Bosstopher (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments on GamerGate Workshop page
Your comments in the "Users involved in off-site disruption banned" section have devolved into mud slinging and are introducing new evidence. If you continue to engage in mud slinging your participation in the case may by restricted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 00:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Fredrick Brennan
I think it was you that asked for the protection. I've unprotected it now as the two problem IPs are blocked. If there are more problems let me know. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Debito Arudou
About this - it seems odd to say that he is an author in the first sentence, and then to say "He is also an author" in the third sentence. Perhaps you could give it another look? — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The whole thing is awkward and I was on mobile at the time.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 18:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

He's Back...
Just so you know, I think he's back... This time, he's being smarter, by using just an IP account, which less can be done about it. So, this time, I'm not sure how to handle it. If you have any ideas, I'm all ears. Thanks. --IJBall (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What did Instantnood do again— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 20:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, Hong Kong stuff. Report to ANI or SPI or AIV or whatever.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 20:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Your revert at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop
Do not revert edits in arbitration space unless the edit is clearly vandalism or blatantly obvious that it's a sock (and it's blocked). This is especially the case when the edit in question concerns you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Noted.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 02:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sock trouble on a manga/anime-related article
Hey Ryulong, 好久不見! Just to let you know I'm prepared to completely bury the hatchet on that other thing. But I'm having a little run-in on the Akira Toriyama talk page in which I appear to have accidentally aligned myself with a somewhat ugly strain of thought that says the unstated connotation of the sentence "X is best-known for Y" should always be "X is best-known for Y among English-speaking Americans". (Note that I'm pretty sure the majority of English-speaking Americans have never heard of Toriyama either way, and I know such people make up only a small minority of people worldwide who have heard of him, so editors assuming this connotation makes the denotation of the sentence factually incorrect in this case.)

The reason I'm coming to you with this is that the most flagrant pusher of this idea is an aggressive sockpuppeteer who seems to have had dealings with you in the past. At least two other probably-good-faith users have put this sockpuppeteer's words in my mouth already, and it's getting kind of frustrating. I'm Irish, I live in Japan, I've never set foot in the United States, and before I learned Japanese my main interaction with Toriyama's work was through French translations that pre-date and are independent from all the American translations -- the claim that I'm forcing a US-centric POV on the article would be laughable if it wasn't repeated after I had already refuted it.

Any idea who it could be?

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (who used to harass and harasses me as ) has a thing for DBZ.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 03:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

wrong page?
i think this edit is on the wrong page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  06:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Copy paste error.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 06:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Third time's the charm?
re, there's also  and. (and I was on my way to do the same thing lol.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it
...safe to presume that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Revert,_block,_ignore_me%3F! this is not you]? Antandrus (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You found a Dragonron sock.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 00:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- I'm not real familiar with that area. Antandrus (talk) 00:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not have nor will I ever plan on having any alternate accounts other than ones I made up when I first registered to avoid name duping.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 00:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)