Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Workshop/ArbCom-PD

Decorum
1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system is prohibited. Concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Administrative decorum
2) Administrators are expected to maintain an appropriate level of decorum. In particular, they are expected to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others, and to avoid acting in a way that brings the project into disrepute.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Struggle and standard of debate
3) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia, in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. While disagreements among editors are inevitable, all editors are expected to work calmly and reasonably towards resolving them, to collaborate in good faith, and to compromise where appropriate—even if they believe that their viewpoint is the only correct one. It is also inevitable that philosophical differences among the participants will result in disputes over questions regarding project policies.  Nevertheless, discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion. It is unacceptable for editors to engage in vituperative rhetoric without attempting to seek help and advice from others in other areas of the project.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Building consensus: WikiProjects
4) A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific topic or family of topics within Wikipedia; and, simultaneously, a group of editors that use said pages to collaborate on encyclopedic work. It may maintain various collaborative processes, keep track of work that needs to be done, and act as a forum where issues of interest to the editors of a subject may be discussed. It should not be used as a platform to push for a certain type of agenda or a view. When in doubt of achieving consensus at the WikiProject level, users are always encouraged to seek help beyond that (i.e. sister WikiProjects, Village pump, etc....).
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"Ignore all rules"
5) Ignore all rules is one of the project's oldest policies and advises users: "if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." This advice can be helpful when addressing uncontroversial or unanticipated situations in which the project can best be helped by avoiding the unintended consequences that would occur by applying the literal wording of a policy. However, "ignore all rules" should not be used to circumvent a consensus decision about the application of a policy.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:

Spirit versus letter
6) Usually, there is no clear distinction between proposed policy, guidelines, and official policy. Policy at Wikipedia is a matter of consensus, tradition, and practice. While the principles of the policies are mostly well established, the details are often still evolving. Policies are not drafted like legal documents and users are urged not to be legalistic about reading policy pages. Policies are actually there to help Wikipedia work, defining more closely what should be done and preserving a good atmosphere. A narrow view of a policy or guideline is not likely to resolve matters. All policies and guidelines together convey to the same ideas as the five pillars.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:

Administrators
7) Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship, as administrators are not expected to be perfect, but consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Administrator communications
8) Administrators are expected to provide timely and civil explanations for their actions. All administrator actions are logged and offer a "reason" field to be used for this purpose. While all editors are expected to reply to good-faith queries about their activities placed on their talk page, administrators are particularly expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them when needed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocking
9) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking. Blocking may only be used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, and not to punish users; that is, blocking is preventative, not punitive. Blocks should be made only if other means --such as warnings-- are not likely to be effective. Even when reversed, blocks that appear arbitrary or capricious, or are based on poor methodology and evidence, have a chilling effect on people's willingness to contribute to Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Baiting
10) Editing in a manner so as to provoke other editors goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors. Editing in such a manner may be perceived as trolling and harassment.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Repeated notifications
11) Notification are good practice. However, frequent and repeated notifications of the same subject directed at the same user may be perceived as harassment. Instead of notifying the same user of the same thing repeatedly, users are advised to seek other venues and let other uninvolved users and/or administrators to deal with it.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * I'm not sure if notifications of any kind can fall under this...perhaps we can narrow down on what kind of notifications, if repeated, can be perceived as harassment? But I'm afraid I don't have a suggestion on where to narrow it down at. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * I'm not sure if notifications of any kind can fall under this...perhaps we can narrow down on what kind of notifications, if repeated, can be perceived as harassment? But I'm afraid I don't have a suggestion on where to narrow it down at. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't believe so...
 * You have blocked A without a warning (January 1901)''
 * You have blocked B without a warning (January 1902)''
 * You have blocked C without a warning (January 1903)''
 * You have blocked Z without a warning (Mars 2009)''
 * Now, you can replace 'blocked A without a warning' with anything you'd like and still find that frequency and repetition is a problem in itself. The notifier could still be called a notifier in 1903 but not anymore beyond that date. In 2009, I'd call him a 'harasser'. Starting 1904, the notifier could stop it and direct his complaints to ANI and other appropriate venues. The problem here is frequency and repetition and the subject becomes irrelevant. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up® 17:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You have blocked Z without a warning (Mars 2009)''
 * Now, you can replace 'blocked A without a warning' with anything you'd like and still find that frequency and repetition is a problem in itself. The notifier could still be called a notifier in 1903 but not anymore beyond that date. In 2009, I'd call him a 'harasser'. Starting 1904, the notifier could stop it and direct his complaints to ANI and other appropriate venues. The problem here is frequency and repetition and the subject becomes irrelevant. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up® 17:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Notifying users of potential and effective blocks
12) Although notifying users of potential blocks is commonplace, administrators should avoid hinting to blocks to users with whom they are in a content dispute.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Rollback
13) The rollback tool allows administrators and rollbackers to quickly perform reverts. It should be used with caution and restraint, in part because it does not allow adding an explanation to the automatic edit summary. Other than to revert vandalism and edits by banned users who are not allowed to make those edits, rollback may also be used in circumstances where widely spread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, since such edits would be tedious to revert manually. However, unless explanation is provided in another appropriate location, such as at a relevant talk page, the rollback tool should not be used to perform any revert which ought ordinarily to be explained, such as a revert of a good-faith content edit nor it should be used in content disputes.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Recall process
14) The recall process is a voluntary. However, for the sake of mutual trust and respect between administrators and users and administrators themselves, it is recommended that administrators who opt for being open to recall to respect their own words and promises. It is also recommended to have one's recall procedure explicit (on the administrator userspace) in order to avoid any unnecessary requests for clarifications.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is good except that it would still allow the "gotcha" problem. Ryulong promised in his RFA to be subject to recall to ameliorate the concerns expressed by various people in the RFA, clearly and explicitly resulting in his receiving more "support" votes. Very soon after his RFA was approved, however, he changed his mind.  Some who support Ryulong's decision say that politicians change their minds all the time and, hence, any campaign promises they make should be treated skeptically.  But Wikipedia is not a governmental organization, administrators are not politicians, and they are not up for reelection periodically.  Administrators should be held to a higher standard.  They should be role models.  So, I was completely shocked when caveat emptor was the response to concerns expressed about Ryulong's promise breaking.  Wikipedia deserves better.  Tennis expert (talk) 08:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This principle cannot go further beyond what is stated. It is up to the community to address your points which I agree with. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up® 06:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If this principle is going to be in the arbitration decision, shouldn't there be a corresponding finding of fact? Tennis expert (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Recidivism
15) Users and administrators whose actions have been questioned many times are expected to avoid repeating mistakes should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of severe sanctions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment/User conduct
16) A user-conduct request for comment ("RfC/U") represents a forum in which editors may raise concerns about the conduct of a fellow editor or administrator. Although this procedure can be misused, when utilized in good faith, it presents an editor with the opportunity to learn that concerns exist about his or her conduct, respond to the concerns, and if appropriate adjust his or her conduct. Civility and decorum are especially important in the highly charged atmosphere of a user-conduct RfC. RfCs should neither be used abusively nor the concerns raised there should be ignored.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

External conduct
17) While users' conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions, the Committee may choose to consider off-wiki activities which are egregiously disruptive to the project in determining findings and sanctions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted; particularly relevant to second IRC Fof imo. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted; particularly relevant to second IRC Fof imo. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Harassment
18) Any user conduct or comments that another editor could reasonably perceive as harassing (as defined in Harassment) should be avoided. On occasion, an action or comment may cause someone to feel harassed, with justification, even if the action or comment was not intended as harassing. In such situations, the user's discontinuing the objected-to behavior, promising not to repeat the behavior, or apologizing is often sufficient to resolve the concern, especially where there is an isolated comment rather than a pattern of them.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

IRC Wikipedia #channels
19) Discussions held in the #wikipedia IRC channels have historically been subject to substantial and unpredictable unauthorized disclosure to parties outside the channel. This limits the channel(s) usefulness for discussion of matters requiring privacy and discretion, as noted in finding 15. There have been several instances, both reported on-wiki and known to Arbitrators anecdotally, in which users have approached administrators on IRC (whether in #wikipedia-en-admins specifically or in private discussions) for the purpose of urging that another user be blocked or moving or protecting a page, even though no emergency or other circumstances are present that would prevent the issue from being raised in the appropriate manner on-wiki. At times, these requests involve parties with whom a user is engaged in a content or editing dispute, but the user being discussed has no opportunity to respond to the allegation being made. While it is understandable that an aggrieved user would seek the immediacy of IRC contact rather than have to post a concern about another user on a noticeboard that might be backlogged or unattended, these types of requests still raise serious issues of process and fairness. Making frequent requests may lead to sanctions. Making frequent requests for blocks of users you are in content dispute with and/or for actions concerning articles you are involved in may lead to sanctions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * The final sentence gives an undue impression that most (if not all) non-urgent requests are inappropriate and unhelpful. Also, often, the process of talking to one or more users about an issue off-wiki can help (diffuse) a situation rather than compound the drama on-wiki. This is even with regards to admin actions. As such, I cannot support this principle in its current form - I think it is too gameable. That said, the finding, particularly the second, amounts to circumstances where there is a very clear issue, which in my opinion, is something of another kind. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree though it can be more gameable the other way around. I have two suggestions; 1) getting rid of it since the rest of the principle is quite explicit and clear and 2) clarifying the sentence that follows it 'Making frequent requests may lead to sanctions' and have something like 'Making frequent requests for blocks of users you are in content dispute with and/or for actions concerning articles you are involved in may lead to sanctions'. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up® 11:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I favour #1 for the reasons you've stated; though the latter is also a good suggestion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it ok now? -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up® 14:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep; noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * After a second thought, I believe 'dispute' is more appropriate than 'content dispute'. -- <font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 16:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep; noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * After a second thought, I believe 'dispute' is more appropriate than 'content dispute'. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 16:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sanctions and circumstances
20) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
1) This case involves two sets of disputes. One of these originated in the actions of administrator Ryulong including but not limited to his questionable blocks and use of the rollback tool while the other arises from the editorial conflicts over the verifiability of the content of articles falling under the scope of WikiProject Tokusatsu. A common element is the involvement of administrator and  in both areas.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong
2), has edited Wikipedia since February 2006, and has been an administrator since January 2007. He has made more than 82,000 edits to Wikipedia, has taken more than 10,000 administrator actions including blocks, deletions, and page protections, and has shown a high level of dedication to the project.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon
3) has been editing Wikipedia since December 2007. During that time, he has shown a strong interest in the same content area as Ryulong and a high level of dedication to the Tokusatsu WikiProject.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Questionable blocks by Ryulong
4) During the time of his adminship, Ryulong has made around 7,000 blocks. A small percentage of those blocks were contested by members of the community as referenced by the first and second RfCs. Some of those blocks were made without prior warning (, (March 09)) and (  one hour after the user's last edit.)). Some others were excessively and unnecessarily long or with a user he's in dispute with or after a single edit with email disabled and talk page editing disabled and no reason for blocking was given (see details here). Many of those actions were made prior to or during the second RfC.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:

Ryulong's first RfC
5) Ryulong's first RfC was opened on July 2007. The RfC concerned mainly his blocking attitude. In general, the community believed administrator Ryulong is a good asset to the project but that he's quite strict to when it comes to using the block button and that some of his blocks are excessive both in nature and in length. The community also agreed to give it another chance.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:

Ryulong misusing rollback
6) Ryulong has misused his administrative rollback tool to revert edits that may be considered unnecessary and non-vandalism, in Power Rangers content disputes. This occurred on multiple occasions. He was blocked for this on March 4, and continued the behavior after the block (see       ).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:

Response to complaints about rollbacks
7) Several editors posted to Ryulongs's talkpage in regards to the rollbacks. Some protested the rollbacks, while others asked the reasons for them or expressed concern about potential violation of policy. Ryulong's responses to some of the queries were cursory, while others were reverted by Ryulong, sometimes in an uncivil manner such as here.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to general complaints
8) Several editors have stated explicitly their concerns concerning Ryulongs's general administrative actions (see mainly both RfCs and the recent ANI thread). While Ryulong has disputed some of the concerns, he maintained that he's been improving his overall performance as an administrator.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Indeed; noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Indeed; noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong and Mythdon's interactions
9) Ryulong and Mythdon have frequently interacted with each other in the course of article writing, particularly within WikiProject Tokusatsu. The interaction first started positively before it became negative. During these interactions, Mythdon would leave notes on Ryulong's talk page, but Ryulong generally found these to be unhelpful or lack validity. Mythdon has shown a continually strict interpretation of policies, and Ryulong has grown gradually more impatient with Mythdon as a result, multiple times stating that he would seek Mythdon be blocked for disruption.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible threats of blocks
10) During the dispute between Ryulong and Mythdon, the former has in a few occasions referred to Mythdon being blocked. One of those comments made on December 08 this one may be seen as a clear threat. Ryulong stated that 'there is no reason to believe it is not a block threat, and is one of the many instances where he has lost his patience in dealing with Mythdon.' The other two made on January 09 and February 09 are debatable whether they constitute a threat or not or whether the intention is clear or not or just referring to actually 'seeking' a block made by someone else (see here and here).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * I'm not comfortable with this amounting to a finding in its current form; I think it's partially due to the wording and partially due to the substance. I think the last 2 diffs should be disregarded completely, while more emphasis is placed on the first diff which is indeed concerning, and why it should've been avoided (and how it is, if not appears, inappropriate). Also, I think reference should be given to what his explanation was in regards to that first diff. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll revisit this. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 11:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I added Ryulong's response to the first diff. I believe there's nothing to add to that; 'may be seen as a clear threat' is quite explicit and more is said at the principles. As for the other two, I personally believe they are not a threat of Ryulong blocking Mythdon himself and if you put them in the right perspective and context (IRC block shopping) you'd probably arrive to the 'debated' conclusion. I'll leave it to the other arbitrators. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 06:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll revisit this. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 11:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I added Ryulong's response to the first diff. I believe there's nothing to add to that; 'may be seen as a clear threat' is quite explicit and more is said at the principles. As for the other two, I personally believe they are not a threat of Ryulong blocking Mythdon himself and if you put them in the right perspective and context (IRC block shopping) you'd probably arrive to the 'debated' conclusion. I'll leave it to the other arbitrators. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 06:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong's second RfC
11) Ryulong's second RfC concerned mainly his use of rollback, and several instances of blocks he had performed. It also concerned his interactions with user:Mythdon. It was created on March 3, 2009 by user:Tiptoety and closed by the same user on March 20, 2009 just after this arbitration case started by user:Synergy. 13 members of the community with the March 4th's statement of Synergy where s/he said that "[s/he] is here to request that [Ryulong] steps down, or be prepared to have a Request for Arbitration filed in regards to this RfC upon a reasonable number of signatories endorsing this very statement". On the other hand, Ryulong responded to the RfC filing and saw 'no use to it, other than it being used in some future RFAR should he pisses someone off, again.'


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * For clarity, I think you should use either this link or this. Currently your wording links to the first RfC, I just didn't think editing it would be appropriate. <font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Syn <font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">ergy 23:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For clarity, I think you should use either this link or this. Currently your wording links to the first RfC, I just didn't think editing it would be appropriate. <font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Syn <font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">ergy 23:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for spotting it. I've just fixed it. Your second link is already used above as well. You could have done it since there's nothing controversial about it :) -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 11:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Behaviour of Ryulong during the case hearing
12) During this case hearing, there has been substantial improvements from the part of Ryulong. He's started to use the 'Undo' button instead that of Rollback when it is not necessary though not always leaving an edit summary for the revert (see here). However, during this case, Ryulong sometimes still used the Rollback button for non-vandalism edits (see here, here, here and here as examples).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Agree, though suggest rewording to "However, during the case, Ryulong sometimes still used...." Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Granted. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 11:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, though suggest rewording to "However, during the case, Ryulong sometimes still used...." Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Granted. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 11:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong and IRC I
13) A number of administrators have indicated that Ryulong has been seeking administrative actions from other administrators via Wikipedia IRC channels (see here and here). Requests made by Ryulong have spanned over a period of 2 years. Some indicated that they had warned him of the questionable nature of some of the requests (see here). Ryulong has confirmed these allegations.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Per my comments on the relevant remedy, not convinced unless it is clear that (1) administrators found it inappropriate, (2) they expressed this view to him, and (3) it still continued. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added clarification and this link --> Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Workshop. And it still continued till early April after the case started unless MBisanz is lying! Ryulong says he 'could not remember' he did request a block from MBisanz recently. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 14:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added clarification and this link --> Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Workshop. And it still continued till early April after the case started unless MBisanz is lying! Ryulong says he 'could not remember' he did request a block from MBisanz recently. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 14:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong and IRC II
14) According to this evidence, Ryulong requested a page move and protection from administrator Risker on IRC.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon's posts at Ryulong's talk page
15) Mythdon has been posting notes at Ryulong's talk page about Ryulong's use of the rollback feature for more than a year. Examples include  Before your account, (19 January 2008) username transaltion (18 January 2008) Fast responses (Why else would you respond very fast - 10 March 2008) Why? (Why is it that you archive your talk page every month? - 5 February 2008) and Ryulong on Youtube. However, most of Mythdon's posts in early 2009 consisted of warnings in relation to Ryulong's use of the rollback tool. On May 6, 2009, Mythdon marked an unsigned comment as "unsigned" belonging to another user --an edit that Ryulong undid. (see ). Mythdon considers that some of those questions were 'just foolish and dumb questions and not intended as harassment'.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Actually, the rollback stuff was in 2009. The questions in this finding are all the many examples of irritating and pointless questions I use to ask Ryulong. — Mythdon  t / c  02:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the rollback stuff was in 2009. The questions in this finding are all the many examples of irritating and pointless questions I use to ask Ryulong. — Mythdon  t / c  02:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This FoF has nothing to do with the rollback. Do you mean that this FoF is irrelevant or unnecessary? -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 03:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted; I'm not sure whether the mention of the May 6 event is needed - perhaps a note that Mythdon, or at least one of his edits, was clearly not welcomed by Ryulong on Ryulong's talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If Ryulong didn't revert that Mythdon edit in his talk page, I'd have omitted it. That shows that Mythdon continued to edit Ryulong's page questionably until May 6, 2009. I tried my best not to label it obsession or harassment though because that would be subjective. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 14:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay; I was going to ask about the preoccupation but it seems you've just answered that - cheers. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon monitoring users' use of Rollback
16) After Mythdon's exclusive monitoring of the use of the rollback feature by Ryulong, Mythdon has started in recent weeks to warn or investigate other users and administrators. (see    ). Mythdon has taken to patrolling through edits with the stated purpose to "look for rollbacks" to question editors about potential misuse of the tool. These notes have been viewed as unnecessary and irritating by several of the questioned editors (see    )


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Actually, the users aren't irritated. They simply disagree if anything. Arrowned disagreed, but was civil and polite about it. There is no irritation to it, as far as I know. Until proven, no assertion of irritation should be made. — Mythdon  t / c  01:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are probably right. I am noting it and leaving it for others to comment on that. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 01:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are probably right. I am noting it and leaving it for others to comment on that. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 01:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Granted. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 17:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Mythdon's interpretation of policies and guidelines
17) Throughout his time on Wikipedia, Mythdon has sometimes shown an excessively strict interpretation of policy as admitted by themselves here. This led to several confrontations between Mythdon and other editors including Ryulong, particularly within WikiProject Tokusatsu. In other cases, he was probably correct in raising the concerns though he has never tried any alternative methods or venues to seek assistance or wider opinions (see here and here).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * My attempts to reword this weren't successful, but the substance is essentially there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably you and me feel exhausted :) Let's leave it to other people. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 17:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My attempts to reword this weren't successful, but the substance is essentially there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably you and me feel exhausted :) Let's leave it to other people. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 17:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon stance toward the articles
18) Mythdon's contributions are mainly revolving around the Power Rangers area and topics. Mythdon has shown over the time that he holds a fixed view towards those subjects. Views include a determination of presenting some articles to AfD even after themselves finding reliable sources. (see )


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * My AfD's in relation to Power Rangers can be for any reason to do so. The most notable reason for nomination is the lack of reliable sources available for proper verification, which plays a key role in the pattern of disputes I and Ryulong have alone together. The diff in this finding was a declaration that I may still nominate a group of articles for deletion even if I do find sources. — Mythdon  t / c  06:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My AfD's in relation to Power Rangers can be for any reason to do so. The most notable reason for nomination is the lack of reliable sources available for proper verification, which plays a key role in the pattern of disputes I and Ryulong have alone together. The diff in this finding was a declaration that I may still nominate a group of articles for deletion even if I do find sources. — Mythdon  t / c  06:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It mainly evolves aronud that 'even': I'd do this even if..., I'd refuse that even if... That is clearly a wrong approach whatever your reasons would be. Remember the 5? There are plenty of other methods which could lead to the same objectives you have as explained througout this PD (check the principles 'Spirit versus letter', 'Building consensus: WikiProjects' and the remedies). It is not about what you do but about the way you do it (is this a saying?). -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 08:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon and on and off-wiki harassment of Ryulong
19) On-wiki, Mythdon has asked Ryulong if he were user Ryulong on Youtube (see here). Off-wiki and back in March 2008, Mythdon did contact the account named Ryulong on Youtube, asking whether or not that user was the same Ryulong as the one on Wikipedia, in which the user declined to answer. Mythdon kept asking over and over for a period of time in hopes of receiving a response but never got one. This year, just about a few months ago, he attempted to ask again, but since the newer message didn't go through as far as he knows, there was no response, which implies that the user blocked him from contacting him. Besides that, he declares he has never attempted to contact Ryulong anywhere off-wiki. (see here)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * "which implies that the user blocked me from contacting him/her" - The correct way would be "which implies that the user blocked him from contacting him/her". — Mythdon  t / c  00:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Could do with a copyedit, but noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You could but everything comes from this. Anyway, feel free to suggest a better wording since it doesn't matter much changing the original wording. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 11:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You could but everything comes from this. Anyway, feel free to suggest a better wording since it doesn't matter much changing the original wording. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 11:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong discussing the identity of Mythdon
20) According to User:MBisanz, Ryulong approached MBisanz last week to inform him that he had found out Mythdon's real life identity through a Youtube page. According to the same information, a couple hours later an IP from the same US State as Ryulong harassed Mythdon calling him a 'little kid'. MBisanz says he confronted Ryulong and he denied socking, blaming his University's geolocation for the similarity (see here). The Arbitration Committee was satisfied with Ryulong's response that he was unlikely the IP behind the edit.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * MBisanz said in private that Checkuser evidence clearly shows that the IP that placed the message on Mythdon's talk page was in no way related to me, and the only thing that even remotely connected that IP to me was its location in the same state I currently reside (and I insist is a considerable distance away as a residential IP address). Was this not included in evidence put forward?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 02:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not received any further clarification apart from the FoF above. Could you discuss it with him? I personally haven't taken this into consideration when drafting remedies and was satisfied with your answer at the workshop. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 03:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As an aside, the content of this has more context to it after FoF 16 which actually discusses Mythdon's actions on YouTube. This is consistently being put out of context because of the IP's commentary.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 09:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I made the satisfactory answer explicit. I believe that sorts it out. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 06:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Still, in the chronology I feel that it has more context after Mythdon's attempts to discern my identity off of Wikipedia.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 07:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried to respect the chronology for each user separately. Anyway, granted. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 07:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 10:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong desysopped
1) For misuse of his administrative tools, failure to address the community's concerns, and inappropriate off-wiki behavior, Ryulong is desysopped. He may regain his adminship either though RfA at any time, or by appeal to ArbCom no less than 6 months after the closure of the case.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Could someone clarify the last sentence? — Mythdon  t / c  02:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Could someone clarify the last sentence? — Mythdon  t / c  02:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As with many desysopped admins or banned users, they get the right to make an appeal after a certain period of time has elapsed. In this case, Ryulong may only be able to appeal to ArbCom after 6 months of desysopping. Otherwise, he's free to request adminship via RfA anytime he chooses after the official closure of this case and seek the community approval. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 02:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So should Ryulong not make an RfA in six months, the ArbCom will take full jurisdiction over Ryulong's right to adminship? — Mythdon  t / c  02:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ryulong will always have the RfA open for him as an option —with or without ArbCom; now or any other time. As for ArbCom, it can only accept appeals of re-adminship after 6 montsh have elapsed. In all scenarios, it is up to Ryulong to decide whether to seek the community judgement anytime he chooses or ArbCom judgement and reevaluation only starting 6 months from now. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 02:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If I might ask, what "disruptive off-wiki behavior" is this? My conversations with other administrators via IRC? Or is this perceived abuse in looking at Mythdon's account on YouTube?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 06:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That includes IRC block, protect and move shopping. It also includes your conversation with MBisanz regarding the identity of Mythdon. All that is kind of between disruptive, highly inappropriate and unbecoming of an admin. It is certainly frowned upon. Anyway, I changed it to 'inappropriate' while waiting for other comments. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 07:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So because Mythdon went out of his way to find me off of Wikipedia and I relate this incident to another administrator, it's inappropriate? I'll concede that I should not have been directly seeking assistance in disputes I had gotten myself into, but I don't believe my relation of his (essential) stalking to a fellow admin should be considered as such.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 09:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You did not merely relate the incident of Mythdon going on his way to find you. That would have been fine and it is your right to tell people about others stalking you even if it was known to many that Mythdon did in fact try to figure out if you were Ryulong on Youtube (based on his question at your talk page). In fact, you told another administrator that you found out about the real name of Mythdon and his age. You communicated both the name and age of Mythdon to the administrator. Note that what is 'inappropriate' is the sum of your actions off-wiki as an admin and this story is only a part of the whole. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 10:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed wording for increased clarity: "For misuse of his administrative tools, failure to address the community's concerns, and disruptive off-wiki behavior, Ryulong is desysopped. He may regain his adminship either though RfA at anytime, or by appeal to ArbCom more than 6 months after the closure of the case." <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) (How am I doing?) 04:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems clearer than the current wording, but I'll let an ArbCom member decide on which one is better. — Mythdon  t / c  04:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks NW. Done. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 05:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be anal retentive about this, but the last sentence is missing a period. <font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Syn <font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">ergy 00:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * - I don't think FayssalF will bite if you added it yourself. ;-) Tiptoety  talk 00:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * :) Be bold Synergy. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 11:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope that if there is another Ryulong RfC, it is purely for making voluntary agreements, and not for significant conduct issues. I definitely favour the proposals below, but I note that an obvious increase in standard of admin conduct would be expected because a desysop will be done via motion if there are issues. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please elaborate on this? I don't understand it. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 15:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Gah, let me try that one again. What I should've said was: I hope that if there is another RfC involving Ryulong, it is purely for making voluntary agreements with other editors (on content), rather than for the purpose of looking at more (of his) significant conduct issues. I would rather that this proposal (above) was not enacted, but instead, that the other proposals below are enacted. He needs to make sure that he can bring his conduct up to a standard that is acceptable over an extended period of time, because if there continue to be issues, then he cannot avoid being desysopped via motion (per the remedy below). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC) struck per comment below 14:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yes... and to tell you the truth, remedy 1.1. was my main choice until last week when I received evidence from MBisanz and Risker (note that there's no 'inappropriate off-wiki behavior' in the remedy 1.1.). I turned it into an alternative now because arbitrators may still opt for it. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 16:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted, in light of new evidence Tiptoety has posted. While the off-wiki behavior evidence may be of concern when combined with the rest, it did not convince me that he needed to be desysopped. However, despite my earlier comments above (which are now struck), the appearance of him edit-warring with the same user makes me now favour this over 1.1. Ncmvocalist (talk)

Ryulong placed under ArbCom probation
1.1) For misuse of his administrative tools and failure to address the concerns of the community for a long period, Ryulong is placed under ArbCom probation for a period of 1 year. In case Ryulong misuses the tools again, he shall be desysopped at the discretion of ArbCom via a motion.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This is an alternative to 1 coupled with 2 and 3. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 01:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:

Ryulong cautioned
2) Ryulong is strongly cautioned to use the administrator's rollback tool only when reverting vandalism. In case of further misuses he may be blocked briefly for each violation, extending to the removal of the rollback tool after 3 blocks, depending on the blocking administrator's discretion.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Should he not follow this restriction if it does get accepted, then what? — Mythdon  t / c  01:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Should he not follow this restriction if it does get accepted, then what? — Mythdon  t / c  01:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not a restriction; it is a caution. But yes, you are right about missing clarification. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 01:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Should he not be desyopped, and in fact he does retain all of his tools. Don't you think we ought to specify when he should and should not use the block button? Such as, only in situations he is uninvolved with, and only after leaving them a warning? I think that leaving a restriction in regards to blocking would be more hazardous than leaving one off for rollback. Tiptoety  talk 00:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll leave that to other Arbitrators who may opt for 1.1. above. I've just clarified it now. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 00:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I prefer that he be cautioned to use rollback as specified in the principle, rather than narrow it back down to vandalism. I also think of the latter part of this to be a restriction, which should be separate (remedy) imo. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Talking about the principle, I'll again get back to my earlier note regarding 'judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia'. Let suppose a scenario where a user uses rollback to revert an edit changing table colors from red to blue. At the absence of any WikiProject guideline suggesting which color to use, reverting while using the rollback button will surely be unwarranted since it is not vandalism and not something 'judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia'. However, if there is a WikiProject guideline preferring using the red color then we can still accept the rollback (but not without pointing out the guideline to the user beforehand). This is a real example I just had yesterday where I could use the rollback button though I didn't. However, if the IP repeats it again I'd certainly use it. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 12:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a fair comment, and I see your point given that the issue of table colours cropped up earlier - but in that case, I do think this caution should be put in the [[Image:User-trash.svg|20px]]. The latter part of this still seems as an enforcement provision for a restriction, and if this is as a restriction, it will make clear that due to the repeated problems with Ryulong's usage of rollback, he's been restricted in how he may use this tool, while rollback (generally) has wider application for everyone else per the principle. Thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The latter part of this still is an enforcement of the rollback guideline itself unless you agree with the way Ryulong has used the tool. To present it in clear terms... if Ryulong uses the rollback tool to revert an edit (table red) to (table green) he'd be blocked briefly for each violation. And for this and a few other reasons such as Mythdon's interpretations of policies and guidelines I added the Wikiproject remedy below. Participants need to produce a general guideline (tables green/blue and other lame stuff) in order for both Ryulong and Mythdon to respect them and cease their questionable actions. In theory, without the above enforcement nothing would stop Ryulong from using the rollback button to revert non-vandalism. In practice, I'd assume good faith and say he got the message. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 15:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, I see what you mean by this proposal now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong admonished
3) Ryulong is admonished:

(A) For his behaviour off-wiki and directed to refrain from seeking Mythdon's identity off-wiki, identifying personal information of Wikipedia users, and from disclosing that information to others. Should Ryulong engage in any attempt to seek Mythdon's identity off wiki or in disclosing any information about Mythdon, then he may be sanctioned in accordance with the enforcement provisions;

(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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Shouldn't this conclude to more like a restriction than an admonishment? — Mythdon  t / c  02:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't this conclude to more like a restriction than an admonishment? — Mythdon  t / c  02:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 'directed to refrain' + 'any further occurrence would lead to severe sanctions' = restriction. That's enough for it. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 02:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * I'm still not convinced on the issues relating to B (I don't believe this is an issue - there is, however, an issue that is more pressing). But this doesn't affect the validity with A. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the evidence and the confirmation of Ryulong, he's been asking admins on IRC to block users with whom he's in content dispute. This has occured during a period spanning over 2 years. Many admins had asked him to stop which means that they consider it inappropriate. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 12:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies; I was under the impression that they felt it was not appropriate, but did not tell him? If you can confirm that they did, but the issue continued, then I will strike my above comment - in which case this remedy is noted in full. If this is unclear, then my earlier comment would stand, but I would endorse him being "urged: To avoid contacting administrators in private to seek either blocks on users he is in dispute with, or the performance of other admin actions, so that further sanctions will not become necessary." You may also wish to use part of this wording to copyedit the above proposal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, I based the FoF and this remedy on MBisanz's response which Ryulong's confirmed. And this evidence tells me that he didn't stop requesting blocks of users he's in content dispute with. According to MBisanz, the Mythdon block request happened on early April 2009 (not in 2007). It's all in the FoF 13. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 15:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon restricted and placed under mentorship
4) Mythdon is restricted and placed under mentorship for a period of 1 year. The terms are:

(A) He is urged to find a mentor within a month of the closure of this case are are free to get a mentor of their choice. Mythdon is directed to inform the Committee once the mentor is selected. In case no mentor is found within 1 month, Mythdon will be assigned a mentor by ArbCom;

(B) He should consult and take guidance from the mentor when issues arise concerning their editing or behavior. Inability to work constructively with a mentor may be a sign that a user has continued difficulty in collaborative editing and that stronger sanctions are required; successful editing during the mentorship may demonstrate that the opposite is true;

(C) During mentorship, Mythdon is restricted from making edits such as unencessary 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * And how would this work out well? — Mythdon  t / c  01:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Which particular points are not clear? -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 01:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am wondering as to how the mentorship and the terms are necessary. — Mythdon  t / c  01:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally find it necessary. You've just been to Ryulong's talk page yesterday. You know that he'd not be happy with your edits there and you still did it. You also ask too many weird and unnecessary irritating questions. Probably a mentor would help you fix that behavior. Other arbitrators may not agree with me. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 01:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ryulong is perfectly welcome to undo any edit I make to his talk page. I do not understand how mentorship would help. — Mythdon  t / c  01:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, to let everyone look at this and see. Now, before Ryulong is welcome to undo any edit you make to his page you better just avoid doing that edit because it shows you that you are somehow obsessed with his talk page. And why would you arrive till the point of making him undo your edits at his page? You have arrived to this case because of similar edits and you are still at it. If you don't know that you are bothering him with such edits unnecessary edits then mentorship is for you and it is the best remedy I can offer you. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 02:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Should I refrain from making edits to his talk page if I have any doubts? — Mythdon  t / c  02:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The objective is not to see you refraining from editing anyone's talk page. The objective is to see you being able to post at people's talk pages without being reverted. If your mentor tells me that you should be restricted from commenting there then I'd follow his advice. After all, you'll be consulting with him before making any edit to anyone's talk page. I don't want people getting irritated with your talk pages' posts as much as I don't want to see your edits being reverted. Let me be clear here Mythdon, there's a problem with your communicative approach in Wikipedia and there's really a need for a mentor. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 02:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What would happen if I don't find one within the month? Would it be selected for me by ArbCom, the community, or would it simply be dropped? And what do you mean by my "communicative approach in Wikipedia"? — Mythdon  t / c  02:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What would happen if I don't find one within the month? Would it be selected for me by ArbCom, the community, or would it simply be dropped? And what do you mean by my "communicative approach in Wikipedia"? — Mythdon  t / c  02:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Then we'd probably have a motion extending it to 2 or 3 months or ArbCom may see the need to assign someone for you. You should really make genuine efforts to find one; otherwise restriction will be there until you do it. Do you want me to add this to the above terms? -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 02:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not going to make such a decision on the terms. That should be left to an impartial person, and not me. — Mythdon  t / c  02:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Would the mentorship apply to just the talk page posting or would it apply to every single movement I want to make on Wikipedia? — Mythdon  t / c  06:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mentorship goal is to guide you to better communicate with users and help you ease your firm stance toward policy and lean toward flexibility. Obviously, you won't need a mentor approval or consultation if —say— you are nominating an article for GA status of course. In a nutshell, you should consult with your mentor whenever it deals with those two main points. Whenever you are unsure when thinking of questioning or asking users questions, you'd just ask your mentor the same questions. You may still make mistakes and that'd be normal and the role of the mentor is to correct you and guide you through to the right direction. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF   - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 07:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that a "yes" or a "no"? — Mythdon  t / c  17:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon admonished
5) Mythdon is admonished for their harassing behavior on and off-wiki and directed to refrain from contacting Ryulong off-wiki and seeking Ryulong's identity on and off-wiki. Should Mythdon engage in any harassing behaviour on or off wiki, which includes attempting to seek Ryulong's identity on or off wiki, or attempting to contact Ryulong off-wiki, then he may be sanctioned in accordance with the enforcement provisions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Personally, I think this should be totally left up to Ryulong. — Mythdon  t / c  02:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC
 * Really? -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 02:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. — Mythdon  t / c  02:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then we'll keep it there until Ryulong tells ArbCom whether it is necessary or not. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 02:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is exactly something the arbitration committee has the power to enforce.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 21:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is exactly something the arbitration committee has the power to enforce.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 21:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course! -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 12:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted, but I hope a more restrictive alternative proposal will also be considered, if Ryulong does not voice objection here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Any suggestion? -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 12:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Should Mythdon engage in any harassing behaviour on or off wiki, which includes attempting to seek Ryulong's identity on or off wiki, or attempting to contact Ryulong off-wiki, then he may be sanctioned in accordance with the enforcement provisions." The enforcement provisions could set out the option to either block him or to ban him from interacting with or commenting about the affected user(s). I have no issues on whether that should be determined by three uninvolved admins or just the one as usual. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I like your suggestion but it should also apply to Ryulong due to the recent incident. Well, I am very serious about off-wiki activities in general, especially harassment and seeking people's identity. The enforcement provision for this will not be less than a ban. It should be determined by the evidence presented and one admin is enough to enforce it. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 15:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I considered the duration of the harassing behaviour when suggesting the more restrictive alternative on Mythdon, and of course, the feedback he received on-wiki (which although was not about off-wiki activity, still effectively conveyed the same point in no uncertain terms). Although Ryulong's relevant off-wiki actions+statement were not justified, they did follow on from the build-up of events, which is why I think an admonishment is more than satisfactory. But all that said, I have no issue if it was proposed for consideration in the same way. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Noting this and revisiting it later on. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 17:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon strongly urged
6) Mythdon is strongly urged:

(A) To take his specific concerns about the verifiability of the articles to a wider venue such as Wikipedia:Village Pump, other sister WikiProjects or the Verifiability policy talk page itself and consult his views with others. He is then advised to report the views of others to WikiProject Tokusatsu for discussions;

(B) To enhance his level of communication with editors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * If you look at most of my AfD's, the editors agreed that the articles be deleted due to those very issues. I can show the Committee links if they wish. — Mythdon  t / c  00:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is more than just that as documented at FoFs above. Also, AfDs are not the right place to push for an agenda. (A) refers to the appropriate methods to do so. But yes, you can still bring links to the Committee if you wish. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 01:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I will list every Power Rangers AfD I ever did on the talk page by tomorrow night. — Mythdon  t / c  01:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Received and will get back to this before submitting the PD to ArbCom vote. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 12:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just had a look at all the AfDs. I must note that stating that 'editors agreed that the articles be deleted due to those very issues' is quite exaggerated. Among 15 articles, 7 were deleted; 7 were kept and 1 redirected. This remedy (mainly point A since it deals with the point we are discussing here) and remedy 7 make sense. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 06:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:

Participants at the WikiProject Tokusatsu
7) All participants at are advised to work on producing a genuine guideline for the articles falling under the scope of the WikiProject Tokusatsu. They are urged to work in collaboration with Mythdon while seeking outside advice and help.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Can an Arbitrator inform all of the WikiProject participants of this proposed remedy? I think that's the right thing to do so they can comment, and so they know ArbCom might make a remedy affecting them. — Mythdon   t / c  03:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk KnightLago will be informing the WikiProject participants. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 05:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer, FayssalF. — Mythdon  t / c  06:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And tell that Clerk there is no need to notify me as I am aware of the proposal already. Thanks. — Mythdon  t / c  06:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And tell that Clerk there is no need to notify me as I am aware of the proposal already. Thanks. — Mythdon  t / c  06:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * He's aware of that :) -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 07:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Tokusatsu notified. KnightLago (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not notify each individual participant? — Mythdon  t / c  13:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Aren't individual participants gathering at the WikiProject or do you inform them individually when discussing an important issue at the WikiProject talk page? Noticeboards and main venues serve for a reason. We'd not inform 901 members of the Miliraty WikiProject individually. If you could help us it would be great. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 15:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Noticeboard is sufficient; of course, in the future (for remedies of this nature), it may be even more convenient for individual members if they are informed on their talk pages - but that will depend if ArbCom accept my proposal, which I will put forward when I am not "busy". Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not the case here but we may probably need a bot in cases where 901 would be involved. If all 901 were involved people or parties to the case, I'd understand it but I still believe that placing a notice at the WikiProject's talk page is sufficient. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 12:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * True. Perhaps also including notice at the main WikiProject talk page would be useful though. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That was already done by KnightLago (see his comment above). -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: Grey"> Wiki me up® 15:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed; I think we are of the same view that both of these pages are sufficient for this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Enforcements

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others: