Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryulong 2

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 04:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Statement of the dispute
Ryulong has failed to abide by policies WP:BLOCK, WP:ROLLBACK, and WP:ADMIN.

Desired outcome
Ryulong needs to stop using the tools in situations which he is involved, and needs to use rollback only for cases of vandalism.

Description
Ryulong has failed to address the many concerns of the community in regards to the use of his administrative tools. In opening this RfC, it is hoped that Ryulong can correct these issues.

Powers misused

 * Blocking (log):
 * A one month blocked placed upon a non-static IP with no history of prior blocks
 * A one month block placed upon a inactive (at the time of the block) IP
 * A blocked placed upon a editor whom Ryulong was in a dispute with (Please see this thread)
 * An IP blocked for one month for failing to sign their posts
 * Block placed upon a IP whom Ryulong was involved in edit with
 * IP blocked for one month with talk page editing disabled and no block reason provided
 * A user blocked with email disabled and talk page editing disabled and no reason for blocking was given
 * User whom created an attack page against Ryulong is blocked with email disabled and talk page editing disabled and no block reason was given
 * Block threat
 * Block threat


 * Administrator rollback RFAR finding
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Applicable policies

 * Blocking policy
 * Ryulong has misused the blocking ability by blocking editors whom he has been in disputes with, and IP address for overly long periods of time.


 * Rollback policy
 * Ryulong has misused rollback and commonly uses it to revert edits that he disagrees with, basically using rollback in a content dispute.
 * When confronted about such policy violations he often removes, rollsback or removes the thread with uncivil edit summaries.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

 * Requests for comment/Ryulong
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute


 * Tiptoety talk 04:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hers fold  (t/a/c) 05:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have privately asked Ryulong before to be careful when blocking large ranges of IP addresses (he has blocked entire ISPs and countries before, in my opinion, when it was unwarranted). I also offered technical advice and references to other admins who could assist him when dealing with abuse from large networks; the most recent blocks listed above show that he hasn't taken this advice on board. — east718 &#124; talk  &#124; 09:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement

 *  MBisanz  talk 05:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Surprised and saddened. Durova Charge! 01:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He is extremely heavy handed. He should take a step back and focus on editing for the good of the project. 137.154.73.31 (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Although one of the blocks I would have done if I were an admin, these are in the minority, and the locking of people's talk pages is quite unnacceptable, particularly if the blocking admin is involved in a dispute with the user. --Russavia Dialogue 01:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The blocking and locking of non-static ip editors and their talk pages for a whole month over personal disputes is unacceptable, in my book, moreso if the admin has a conflict with the user Yamakiri (Talk) 02:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

View by Hersfold
I don't usually comment in these, so if this is in the wrong section, please feel free to move it around as appropriate.

I've also dealt with Ryulong in several of these cases; while he does often make the correct decision about things, I've noticed that he is rarely open to comments and discussion on his actions. This causes particular problems in situations such as the basis for this dispute, where Ryulong is in fact misusing the administrator rights. I have personally corrected one of his actions myself as seen at User talk:Ryulong/Archive 29; Ryulong indefinitely blocked a user whom he had been involved in a dispute with. I shortened the block to 48 hours, and Tiptoety and I both asked Ryulong to take such matters to ANI in the future for review by uninvolved editors; he did not accept our comments at all, and clearly continues to block in this manner.

While I do often find myself supporting Ryulong's actions, I feel that he, like the rest of us, needs to be firmly reminded that Wikipedia works on consensus, which often means accepting constructive criticism and learning from past mistakes. Where he is involved in a dispute, care should be taken to ensure that the administrator tools are not being misused. If Ryulong believes action is in order, he should seek assistance on WP:AN or another appropriate noticeboard, remembering that administrators and other editors will generally against attacks and abuse.

Should this not occur, then it seems to me that an Arbitration case would be in order to handle Ryulong's conduct. As evidenced above, several attempts have been made to address this, all to no avail. I hate to consider this, however at this point we have little other choice.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Hers fold  (t/a/c) 05:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement of dispute by Mythdon
I hope I am posting in the right section.

I have had involvement with Ryulong since I first started editing, and in fact read some of his talk page comments before I started editing. However, the heated discussions between me and him have just gone on for the last few months. Early in my editing on Wikipedia, I viewed him as any other editor. Now, I view him as an abusive admin due to his blocks on other editors without leaving them a message, without giving a reason in the logs, and not warning them prior to indefinite blocks, so basically, Ryulong is not giving users an oppurtinity to change their ways. However, I am not suggesting that Ryulong should coddle disruption, but rather find solutions prior to blocking indefinitely.

Now as for the details, I have been dealing with him as well. He refuses to listen to me when I warn him about his abuse rollback. He has refused to change the way he uses rollbacks. Behavior like this is unacceptable and horrid, given that alternatives are avaliable. He can use the undo feature which I have been suggesting him to use. His threat to have me blocked in that Sky Tate deletion nomination is horribly unacceptable and defensive. Defensive and offensive are just two of a thousand words to desribe Ryulong's conduct. His comments to me where he threatens to have me blocked makes me feel like he is abusive. He can not understand the purpose of rollback, and just having that misunderstanding persistently would make me call for an admin to be desysopped, but I don't know if I'll make the call for Ryulong in ArbCom as it already looks like a case will be filed before I have a chance too. I do have hard feelings towards him, just as he has hard feelings towards me. I have hard feelings because of this very conduct.

Now, should he retire from Wikipedia following an arbitration filing, It'd be his problem. Not anyone elses. Threatening to retire shows how high his emotions are giving his phrasing of the template even using profane language. I am not amazed about his way of speech towards me, despite the fact that I am pretty sure I am doing the right thing.

Also, back in February, he more or less made a declaration that he will wheel war if an administrator does something that he disagrees with. He stated "And if these articles get unnecessarily deleted instead of merged to where the content can at least be used sometime in the future, I will undelete the history and leave the redirect in place".

Users who endores this summary:
 * 1) — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Given what you have shown evidence of here, and due to comments by Ryulong, one can only endorse your summary. So much so that if I were Ryulong, I would resign as an admin, rather than see this taken to Arbcom, because it is evident that he has abused, and continues to abuse, his admin position. --Russavia Dialogue 20:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 3)  Powergate92   Talk  22:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

The various issues here have been covered in the ANI thread that Tiptoety links to in one of the diffs. Much of the rest of this is just a series of single reverts that are questionable and do not encompass the entirety of my uses of rollback or the undo button (without putting an edit summary in).

I do not like Mythdon. My patience with him has been strained since he began editing and conversing with me. The volume of his requests to me and his activities on Wikipedia have made me lose any patience I have had with him and my tone to him (or lack of response to him) is indicative of that. There is nothing that any RFC will do for me to stop acting a certain way to him.

I really see no use to this RFC, other than it being used in some future RFAR should I piss someone off, again, as I did Tiptoety this afternoon in an off-Wikipedia discussion medium.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 04:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and block #5 is not from a content dispute. It is an IP belonging to a long term abuser who has a hate-boner for Haim Saban. If you go back in the history of that page, you'll see the same content plastered here, here, here and more times in the history of Power Rangers and related articles. He's on this IP now, apparently, which I'm going to extend the block on.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 05:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) — Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 04:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Response II
I am frankly surprised that because of the above minor instances of mistakes (or some major mistakes that have not since been repeated) that Synergy has suggested that I be desysopped. Of any of the blocks (or block threats which I used to say "I will seek that you be blocked") on users, they have all been discussed ad infinitum in other forums. My block on the IP who didn't sign any posts was discussed and the unblock made (I really wish I could remember how I came upon that particular editor, but I still swear there was a thread at AN or ANI about it and it was not failing to sign posts but refusing to sign posts except with "Intentionally unsigned). Other IP blocks are on IPs that are from the vandal I list above in my second signed section. Was it wrong to block this user? And this is a banned user.

I do see now that my use of rollback in several of the situations above aren't exactly perfect, but the series of rollbacks I performed on this IP's edits are because it is a semi-vandalistic series of edits from someone who seems not to like the fullnames in the topic area, and there have been problems with the edits in the past (that no one seemed to care about until Tiptoety went through my uses of rollback to file this RFC). The rollback of fact tags was discussed on Mythdon's talk page after that edit and after which I was advised that my use of rollback was inappropriate (and much of the other uses of rollback on Mythdon's edits are to my talk page where I remove his constant harping that I shouldn't maybe use rollback in certain situations). Again, my interactions with him are not going to improve by any means, but this RFC or an RFAR are not going to solve that because it would involve one of the two of us avoiding each other, which isn't going to happen because we're both bleeding hearts in the topic area we edit, although at different spectrums. Honestly, I have probably been using rollback in cases where it was not needed since I had the script in my monobook.js prior to my 3rd RFA (and prior to the "undo" button being instituted in the software).

Am I going to change completely? No. Will I try to improve? Yes. Will I fuck up every now and then in these areas? Yes. But this is not something that I should be demoted for, in my opinion.

And I've said it once before (somewhere, can't bother to find it), but if there is ever an arbitration case over something along these lines, my userpages will be replaced wholesale by that ugly ass black box.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 05:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Response III
These are to Patton123's diffs.

First of all, did you type my name into the search box at WP:AN for these? Most of these are instances in 2007 which were dealt with in 2007. I hope this covers everything— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 20:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The first RFC was closed because not enough users could certify the basis for the dispute, and most of the users there (and cited at a later proposed RFAR in my name) supported my actions.
 * My block of Videmus Omnia was clearly dealt with at that thread, and discussed at at that thread, and I unblocked him at that thread. I don't see what this has to do with any of the items at this RFC.
 * My involvement at the IRC arbitration case was extremely minimal. I'm not even mentioned in the proposed decision.
 * More Videmus Omnia stuff which was clearly dealt with when it happened.
 * The "Straight Outta Lynwood" thread was self-contained and not indicative of anything.
 * Nixer has been banned for edit warring. My actions at the Pluto article at the time found that he had used sockpuppets to edit war.
 * That diff is directly related to the first RFC.
 * My user talk page is not currently protected in any way, and that doesn't really have much to do with anything here.
 * The block threats are the first thing you list that is actually relevant and I've not been acting so rashly lately (this covers the next two diffs as well).
 * I don't know why you picked out that discussion with Floria L.
 * Mythdon's addition of those tags was discussed on his page.
 * That is one of the rollbacks listed above.
 * The next two diffs are the same one, and as I've said earlier, my patience in dealing with Mythdon is nonexistant.
 * That block has been dealt with or is listed above.

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by MBisanz
Ryulong is a dedicated participant to WikiProject Tokusatsu. He is also a highly active administrator. Frequently it appears he becomes emotionally attached to the tokusatsu articles he edits and violates or threatens to violate policy as a result of this attachment. I think Ryulong should try to separate his emotions from his editing and step back from a situation if he feels stressed. I think he also should remember to avoid using administrative tools in areas he edits, as that can having a chilling effect on other contributors.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  MBisanz  talk 05:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Tiptoety  talk 05:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) if one cannot behave in a detached manner when it comes to a topic area, they should refrain from any use of the admin tools in that area which may be perceived as controversial. However, I do not have any doubts that Ryulong is conscientious in his role as an editor, and encourage him to continue his work on Power Rangers/Kamen Rider articles. — east718 &#124; talk  &#124; 09:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Hers fold  (t/a/c) 16:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) X  clamation point  00:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 6)  Syn  ergy 02:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Exactly, the last sentence especially. Daniel (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 8)  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Agreed. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  19:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Naturally.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 04:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Ottava Rima
In my experience, Ryulong is quick to judge, overly harsh, unwilling to communicate, and overly defensive of administrators that he spends the majority of his time with. When sought after, he had another admin who he is friends with go on point and used that admin in order to deny any communication. He does not use blocks for preventative measures. Instead, lack of communication shows that they are more punitive.

As per my blocklog - "User continues to utilize e-mail to question block, reblocking with e-mail blocked and resetting block length". I sent him two emails wishing to discuss the block. I was also in communication with other admin about the block. Both actions caused him to take it as an offense, even though the blocking guidelines even state that this is an appropriate action. I have no faith in his ability to determine blocks, and his actions since then have only verified that this is a common problem with him. He should immediately step down, and, if he refuses, should be desysopped until a time that he has proven that he understands our blocking policies, seeks to prevent disruption and not actually cause it himself, and has proven that he can be trusted by the community after a very long time in which he has proven that he can interact with others in a fair basis and be willing to basic communication with those who he differs with.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Synergy
Let me start by saying that I can only recall one situation where he and I have disagreed. It was on a issue which isn't the purview of this RfC, since it was probably the best course of action at the time, which makes me an outside view with respect to these issues (as opposed to many who have shown up thus far). So I am very surprised at a number of actions presented in this RfC. The conduct of an admin is just as important as the performance. Even here, Ryulong chooses not to respond to the major issues that are establishing a trend (more on this in a second) and needs to be nipped in the bud asap. Not just so he can remain an admin, but more importantly, for the sake of this project. Such actions are detrimental to the community, and are the creases that definitely need ironing out to ensure a seamless set of day to day operations; the maintaining of our wiki. But this is not only the establishment of a pattern. There is a long history of concerns that stem from (at least) his third RfA, and extend to his first RfC. Overall, I do not believe he has listened to the community (here, here and the many attempts outlined above) and so the only question I can pose, is this: Is it likely that he will now listen, or is it beneficial to remove him from this role? I believe his removal is necessary, with proof being the filing and certifying of this second RfC. So I am here to request that he 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.  Syn  ergy 18:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  Syn  ergy 18:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) While I originally hoped that this RfC could bring about a much needed positive change to Ryulong's behavior, he has clearly stated here that he will not change, and I quote: "There is nothing that any RFC will do for me to stop acting a certain way to another user." (Please note Ryulong changed his statement slightly)  For this reason I feel that the only option left is for him to be desyoped.  Tiptoety  talk 23:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Outside viewpoint - after reviewing all of this, a desysop looks like the only course of action. I say desysop, but if he can demonstrate that he can edit within policy and without causing disruption over an extended period of time, he should be resysopped. (With RfA or without RfA I do not know.) Inferno,   Lord of   Penguins  00:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) VX! talk 00:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) With some reservation. I'd much prefer another course of action, but if Ryulong is not even willing to consider changing his conduct then we have no other course of action. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) I don't really have much to say, other than I hope Ryulong will take the advice on board and be more careful when using the administrator tools. If this is not something that is agreed to, I urge the filing parties to consider RfAr, as the desired outcome particularly avoids any mention of a motion to desysop or find official fault (through ArbCom admonishment, or whatever) with these actions. Without expressing a view to this regard myself, the request for comment is only useful as long as the desired outcome is agreed to, and from the statements made by Ryulong about his actions, I'm not so sure they are being agreed to. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 20:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Ironholds (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Given Ryulong's comments and his continuation of making inappropriates threats of blocking, this looks like the only course of action. --Russavia Dialogue 19:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 10)  Powergate92   Talk  22:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Per Hersfold. –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  19:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Per Requests for comment/RyulongRequests_for_arbitration/IRC I don't think Ryulong should be an adminstrator. He has the wrong temperatment.-- Patton t / c 19:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Prior to reading any of the diffs of this RfC, I was under the impression that Ryulong oftentimes displays an attitude that administrators have certifiably better judgment than non-administrators, and uses this argument to get others to do what he feels is needed. He is a fantastic vandal-fighter/writer, but he needs to take the criticisms of this page on-board. If this RfC does not change things, then the removal of his bit would be imminent (as unfortunate as it is).  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 04:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by
Users who endorse this summary:

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

Closed
RFAR filed. Tiptoety talk 01:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.