Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ryulong 2

More
I am a bit worried here as Ryulong simply does not seem to get it. Blocks like this are the exact thing this RFC is discussing. A first time block of one week, on a IP editor whom is editing the same subjects as Ryulong is exactly what this RFC is about. Also, I am still noticing that Ryulong is continuing to revert non-vandalism edits such as: Mind you all of these reverts and the block were performed after this RFC was filed. If it is clear enough that Ryulong is not going to take these concerns to heart and work on improving his behavior there is no point to it being open and I might as well just file a RFAR. Tiptoety talk 20:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * I can't completely change everything I do regarding rollback. I was notified of that IP by Mbisanz because of its edits and it had warnings, so I blocked it. Does it matter that it was for a week? And the only thing that's going to come out of an RFAR on me is me quitting this project.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 20:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, leave the project following an ArbCom filing. That may very well be the solution to all these issues. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt that there are problems with Ryulongs judgement, and I don't see reason to doubt that he's making an effort to try to fix them (btw, I urge him to try even harder than he already is). But Mythdon; your comment was made in bad taste - I hope you modify it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Modification is too late. You already made a response to it, so I'm not going to change it. If he retires, so be it. I'll perfectly allow it. This looks to me like the beginning of the end of Ryulong's status on Wikipedia. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No it isn't (unless you really don't see the problem with it); you can modify it by striking the original and then rewriting next to it - everyone understands that my comment was directed at the original. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am keeping it the way it is. It is not anything to worry about. I am not going to alter my comments just because it's tone is a bit too high. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Ryulongs second statement
Let me begin by assuming you missed Ottava Rima's call for your head, and decided to go straight for me. What you fail to grasp Ryulong, is that I have absolutely no remorse for an admin who is unwilling to take suggestions and corrective actions upon the communities various objections, outlined in both of these RfC's. But that was before your second response. You only now say you will try to appease us, and change, but only with a possible arbitration case in the air (yet likely to retire over?). Regardless. You were the party who assumed this RfC might be used for a case, and if my view is endorsed with enough signatures, I will have no problem filing the case myself. But as you should know, this might not happen given that it is not the most popular view at the moment. If this is the case, then so be it. I hold no grudge with you.  Syn  ergy 20:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There's not much that I can really say to Ottava's statement (I also believe there was a less than cordial meeting between the two of us in the past that I really do not wish to recall through contrib searching at the moment). The rollbacks I do may not be right, but it's often easier to rollback several edits than to go back in the history and see which edits may or may not be in policy. I was not aware (until recently) that removing nonconstructive or unreferenced/unsourced content through rollback would be a content dispute. I've been trying to change my actions, and the edits and blocks pointed out by Tiptoety have most likely the only aberations that fall under this RFC's initial filing. And now with Mythdon's statement, I cannot expect this to go on any further. My patience with him has long been lost as I am painfully aware you will all see if you try to converse with him concerning this RFC.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 21:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Read my modification of my statement. Hopefully you will. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification
I noticed that Mythdon stated that Ryulong said he would wheel war. After reading over the diff, the comment Ryulong made here did bring up a few concerns, but did not see like a statement of his intentions to wheel war. I think Ryulong should have an opportunity to clarify what he meant by that statement and encourage him t do so. Tiptoety talk 22:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It was in a period of time when I was trying to get Mythdon not to use the AFD process to solve article problems. Merging this content (such as episode articles or fictional character biographies) into larger lists is a much better solution than outright deletion. Again, this was when my emotions were getting the best of me in this topic area.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 22:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent block threat by Ryulong
Okay, I have just looked through a talk page post made by Ryulong, and now I find that he threatened to block an editor, only because that editor was changing header colors on an article episode list. Disturbing, isn't it?. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 19:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * While I find that dif disturbing, I find it no more disturbing than you continuing to "stir the pot," so-to-speak. JPG-GR (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest Mythdon voluntarily agrees to stop interacting with, or commenting on Ryulong; I'd rather a voluntary agreement than a forced measure. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur. Walking away is sometimes the better option. Its a large wiki, plenty to do.  Syn  ergy 15:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I will do whatever I need to do to deal with him. I am just one of the many editors aware of his persistent disruption and one of them who deals with him. We cannot allow this disruption to go on any further. I notice that Tiptoety has been dealing with him as well. At this point, I think Ryulong should either start listening to us and stop abusing his powers or risk losing his administrative access. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why anyone is saying anything about Mythdon here. All he has done is come here and presented another case from only 24 hours ago, where Ryulong has threatened to block someone because he disputes an edit that was made. I'd suggest stop looking at Mythdon, and start looking at Ryulong's inappropriate threats made as an admin. Mythdon has every right to make the above edit known here, especially as it came after various things that Ryulong has stated on this RFC, and which fly in the face of exactly what he has said. --Russavia Dialogue 19:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between pointing out damning difs such as the one above and pointing out damning difs + comments to color everyone's opinion (see "Disturbing, isn't it?." (sic)). I'm of the belief that the Wikipedia community can form their own opinions based on the evidence. JPG-GR (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Mythdon - you agree with many that something needs to be done about Ryulong because "many editors" have voiced it and that he should "start listening" to them. However, when many editors voice that you should take steps to stop interacting with him, you do not. Why are you exempt? I'm curious. JPG-GR (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He is an editor who should be dealt with by all means. He abuses rollback, so much that to an extent, the edits he rollsback are edits that are, if anything, judged by consensus and not policy. He claims it is easier than "undo". Instead of using rollback for reverting such edits, he should be using "undo" and provide an edit summary, or go to an old revision and provide the edit summary, then make his change. These are simple steps that have a big impact on the edit history and the editors, believe it or not, given that the editors will know why he performed the action. But also, using "undo" for reverting such edits without an edit summary is just as bad as using rollback to do so. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 20:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna assume that you thought I was saying Ryulong was innocent as opposed to assuming that you are avoiding my question for some reason unclear to me. So, I pose the question again - why are you exempt from following the suggestions voiced by your fellow editors (stop interacting with Ryulong) yet so angered when your suggestions for Ryulong (stop abusing rollback) go unanswered? JPG-GR (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I answered the question. Did my phrasing make it unclear?. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how at no point did you make any comment about yourself, no you didn't. But, I won't press for an answer. JPG-GR (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent rollback by Ryulong
While Ryulong generally abuses rollback, I have recently found him to have made a somewhat more WP:ROLLBACK-compliant rollback for a change. This was a rollback of false information—potential vandalism. However, the issue is that Ryulong did not warn the offending editor of their offense that was rolled back. I am not defending Ryulong, but rather pointing out that he may be cleaning up his act. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 23:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)