Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Workshop

This is a page for working on the Arbitration case (see also /Evidence and /Proposed decision pages). The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals at the Workshop subpages and link to them from here for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions.

Only involved parties, Clerks and Arbitrators may edit this Workshop main page, unless stated otherwise. Arbitrators will be submitting questions to the involved parties to answer. Arbitrators may post notes and comments and proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

• 7 May 2009

This date is the deadline for the closure of the case as agreed upon by the participants at the Workshop talk page. Note that this deadline may be updated depending on the course and the flow of the case. However, parties are urged to respect it.

• 10 May 2009 (See update here).

Here goes the list of Participants. Clerks will place here the involved parties and may probably add others depending on the course of the case and the reading of the evidence.

• Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Mythdon (talk · contribs)
• Hersfold (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Prior to any questions, every single party of the case can express themselves in a 500 words or less statement in their dedicated section below. This section is dedicated to statements where parties lay out why they believe they are having a case and what is the outcome sought. Statements should not include any evidence or any diff. Comment on statements of the other party will not be considered by the Arbitrator(s) and statements who include accusations may be removed by the Clerk(s) per request from the Arbitrator(s) if necessary.

Hersfold[edit]

Looks like I'm first up...

Ryulong has been an administrator here for some time. During that time, he has made some mistakes, as is to be expected of your average human volunteer thrust into a fishbowl position. It is possible, but I do not believe supported by the evidence presented, that he has made more mistakes than usual. Most of the potentially problematic behavior exhibited by Ryulong that is presented as evidence to this case has been in his dealings with Mythdon. While it may not be an excuse for the behavior, Mythdon's actions can easily serve as an explanation to the cause of Ryulong's errors in judgement. Mythdon has been shown, in evidence and throughout the course of this case, to take excessively literally-minded interpretations of policies and guidelines that are largely intended to be flexible, and force those interpretations into situations where they do not adequately fit, as though trying to force a square peg into the round hole. If the peg is small enough, it may fit, however if it isn't, the effort spent getting the peg to fit simply results in high frustrations for all involved, particularly since Mythdon has repeatedly demonstrated that he is not willing to give up an issue despite having a large group of users arguing the point against him. Please see the Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Workshop#Recusing Newyorkbrad? discussion for a prime example of this. I strongly feel this needs dealing with, as such heavy-handed treatment of trivial issues is not at all conducive to the collaborative environment Wikipedia depends on to function.

To bring things back to Ryulong, I can understand the cause of his frustrations and actions in regard to Mythdon. Does this wholly excuse him? Probably not; his actions are still his own. His actions since then, however, appear to be promising. Since partway through the RfC and throughout this case, Ryulong has been seeking out assistance from others (myself included), and moving more towards use of the "undo" button rather than rollback. So long as improvement, or the intent to improve, is visible, I feel as though severe penalties are both inappropriate and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Party [2][edit]

This section is for the Arbitrators to ask the parties general and preliminary questions about the case (e.g. Do you believe that the steps you have taken to resolve the dispute were appropriate?). Each party is asked to respond to all questions from the Arbitrators unless the arbitrator limits the scope of the question. Please remember that you are responding to the Arbitrator's question and not the other parties' responses. At this round, answers should not be limited to a 'Yes' or 'No'; answers should be explanatory. Answers should be submitted within 7 days of the Arbitrator(s) date stamp. Answers should be submitted before April 29th, 2009.

Additional note: Please read all the questions before starting to answer in order to avoid redundancy. Also, please be concise and avoid detailing evidences at this stage as more detailed questions will follow. Parties are requested to try to answer the following questions before April 29 to allow us moving to the next stage as announced here.

Questions to Ryulong[edit]

Question 1[edit]

This case is about your use of the tools --including administrative ones. Since we are missing the Workshop statement, could you please summarize very briefly in a few lines your view on the case as a whole?

Response[edit]

This case was filed in response to Synergy's commentary at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryulong 2 who said that if there was enough signatory responses to his view of the dispute that he would list this case. That RFC concerned mainly my use of rollback, and several instances of blocks I had performed that Tiptoety (the RFC's filer) believed were not within policy which I subsequently explained. This and some of Tiptoety's evidence still has some false assumptions that I expanded on the evidence talk page. This case has also involved my interactions with Mythdon, which have become less cordial since his first interaction with me. In the end, the 2nd RFC and this case have been filed as a way to remove me as an administrator because I came to believe that recall was not something I wanted to go through, much like this very case.—Ryūlóng (竜龙)

Question 2[edit]

Some experienced administrators and users have believed that you 'are quite strict to when it comes to using the block button'. Could you please help me assess the weight of these community members' view?

Response[edit]

My blocks on users and IP addresses had been long, and several administrators have advised me that the blocks I have made have been too long. If I block a registered user or an IP address these days, there's a very clear reason that I can expound upon if asked (sometimes in private, sometimes on Wikipedia). My blocks have been few and far between since the beginning of this year, compared to other six month periods from last year and the year before.

And (as stated in the first RFC), my being strict is that I did not bother with warning a user to stop performing vandalism. If they make several vandalistic edits in succession, in my opinion, they are not here to do any good in the first place. Blatant vandals used to only get one warning before they were blocked for a period of time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙)

Question 3[edit]

Some experienced users and administrators believe that you have been given enough chances and you could even fail to pass a RfA if you try it today. Some others believe that you can still do better if you get some mentorship. Which view appears more subtle reasonable to you —if any— and why?

Response[edit]

I do not understand what you mean by "subtle". Could you please clarify?

Well, the standards for RfA have become much more strict and the RfA "voting" community much more harsh since I passed two years ago. It's pretty much near impossible because there will be users who will hunt through contributions for the most minute and one-off instance of you acting incivil and then use that as leverage and produce a pile-on oppose. The community today expects administrators to be infallible. It was only last week that an administrator got chewed out because he added something to the new abuse filter and it caused a heap of trouble. Going through another RFA, especially with the ill will I've apparently gained in several users of the community would not be reasonable to me, given that it is simply another form of community members who have it out against me, for their various reasons, to drag me through the mud as much as possible.

In comparison, the "mentoring" process does seem more reasonable, even though I've had 2 years+ of administrative actions under my belt, and I've been making progress/changes in how I edit, interact with other users, and perform administrative duties, often asking some users if saying something a particular way would be inappropriate or whether or not I should block a user and for how long. I am fairly certain that, including this voluntary "mentoring" I am going through already, there are a much lower volume of questionable rollbacks and blocks that I have made since my reevaluation of the second RfC and the onset of this case. I have, a couple of times, pressed the rollback button and then realized that I probably should have used undo instead, but these are few and far between, even amongst my few rollbacks.—Ryūlóng (竜龙)

Question 4[edit]

What do you think about the RfCs you have gone through? Why do you think there was a shift from a community support (as you considered it on your ArbCom opening statement) during your first RfC to a call for desysopping during the second? Applicable policies and guidelines also shifted from wp:AGF, wp:BLOCK, wp:BITE, wp:CIVIL to include the Rollback policy during the second RfC. What do you think about it?

Response[edit]

The first RFC was started by Videmus Omnia (VO) after a series of blocks I made (and subsequently undid) on his account. He used the opportunity to find as many blocks as possible that he disagreed with that I then defended in detail in the case. In that case, practically all users involved supported me in my endeavors.

Since rollback was made a tool applicable to all users, the policies concerning the use of it have been made and are clear as to that they are used in the cases of vandalism and "blatantly unproductive edits". I take that bit to include edits that mess up the formatting of a page or content that is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The shift in the second RFC is most likely due to my initial dismissive feelings about the basis of the RFC itself, and my prior discussion with Tiptoety before he filed it. I felt it was somewhat retaliatory at the time, but once I saw that there were many other users who felt I was not acting properly, I began an effort to change my editing and administrative practices. Despite these changes (which I also discuss in my evidence), Synergy filed this case.—Ryūlóng (竜龙)

Question 5[edit]

Do you believe not enough time has elapsed between the first RfC and the second one?

Response[edit]

The first RFC and the second RFC concern completely unrelated topics and situations, the only overlap being the fact that there are blocks that the filing user had problems with. I do believe that not enough time has elapsed between the second RFC and the filing of this case, as the former was closed after the latter was filed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙)

Question 6[edit]

What is you view on wp:IAR, wp:AOR and adminship in general?

Response[edit]

I feel that IAR is what it is supposed to be for: ignoring rules in order to make the encyclopedia better. Whether this is not warning vandals before blocking them or arguing that an article should be on Wikipedia because it is verifiable despite sourcing being non-existant due to the nature of the subject matter, I ignore them to improve Wikipedia.

I was never really happy with the concept of WP:AOR. I added myself to the category after the RFA passed, then removed it after with no pomp and circumstance until someone (several months after both) decided that they wanted to put me up for recall. Since then, practically every instance of someone wanting to recall my adminship (category or no), never passed.

Adminship is just janitorial work here, compared to the article writing I perform in and out of the overlap of edits with Mythdon, which I will go into detail below. I do believe I do good work for the encyclopedia with the block, delete, protect, and rollback buttons. Some disagree, which is why we are here today.—Ryūlóng (竜龙)

Question 7[edit]

Do you believe that you are very attached to the articles you are editing with user:Mythdon? If yes, how?

Response[edit]

I am not so sure that I am attached to these articles. I just have different ideas concerning their inclusion and upkeep than Mythdon does.—Ryūlóng (竜龙)

Question 8[edit]

user:Mythdon appears to have a view toward sourcing and notability different than yours. Could you elaborate on your view?

Response[edit]

Mythdon has for a long time kept a to-the-letter view concerning reliable sources and notability, which in my opinion is harmful to the upkeep and writing of articles on fictional subjects (television series, films, video games, etc.). Its been a long standing issue concerning the notability of individual fictional characters or individual television episodes, and Mythdon is in the camp that there has to be independent third party sources in order for article content to be considered worthy for inclusion on Wikipedia.

I am aware that there aren't going to be references for individual episodes of television series or individual primary protagonists or antagonists in a children's television series, and that they are notable even without clear references that exist online or in print. There is never going to be as much coverage on Tommy the Power Ranger as there is for Jean-Luc Picard or the Fourth Doctor. I'm sure that if Mythdon edited another topic area on a fictional universe, he would be ruffling as many feathers as he does in the topic area he and I edit now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙)

Question 9[edit]

You've been receiving notes from user:Mythdon at your talk page in many occasions. Have you thought that they made sense --at least some of them? Did you believe he had some valid points? If yes, what actions have you taken to address them?

Response[edit]

I cannot really recall any instance where one of Mythdon's comments on my actions on my talk page have had any validity to them. In most of my discussions where either editing or administrative actions, he has taken a strict reading of policy and uses them as leverage such as "If you can show me where it says that, then I will agree". In searching for some instance where he could have been right, is this where he feels that online stores cannot be used as reliable sources for content such as song titles or release dates.—Ryūlóng (竜龙)

Question 10[edit]

Do you think, as Hesfold states in their statement above, that 'questionable' actions as an Administrator and Rollbacker may be a result of a frustration caused by user:Mythdon's behavior?

Response[edit]

Other than rollbacks on Mythdon's edits (which I know is wrong because it is an content dispute) or my statements that "if you do not stop, I will see(k) that you be blocked" were based on my frustration caused by his behavior. If he did not critique any rollback or edit I make on pages we very likely both watchlist or enforce strict applications of notability and sourcing policies and guidelines, I would have no problem with him and this case probably would not have evolved.—Ryūlóng (竜龙)

Question 11[edit]

What kind of assistance and advice have you sought? Do you believe the people you approached were helpful or not? If yes, how. If not, why?

Response[edit]

I've been contacting various other administrators concerning blocks that I think should be enacted, particularly on registered accounts, but might end up controversial because I am unsure about what should be done. I am sure that Hersfold can provide specific instances where I've asked him for help, but I do not keep tabs on who I ask and who I ask about. They've been mostly helpful, as I heed their advice and perform (or do not perform) the act in question. In one instance, I asked about a specific length I should apply to a very clear block.—Ryūlóng (竜龙)

Question 12[edit]

You have stated in different occasions that you are trying to improve (emphasis is mine). Could you summarize that in a few points?

Response[edit]

Since the filing of the second RFC and my own reassessment of the points it brought up, I have been performing many less rollbacks on edits that I find unconstructive, using the undo option instead, and performing many less blocks on accounts and IP addresses. In this month (April 2009) alone, I've made 11 blocks total compared to March's 34, February's 35, and January's 31 (this ignores the 100+ blocks I made on January 1 on the admitted sockpuppets of User:Hamish Ross). No one can improve overnight as the RFC wanted to happen. But I do feel that I have made significant changes to my editing and administrative practices in a month's time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙)

Questions to Mythdon[edit]

Question 1[edit]

This case is about your dealing with user:Ryulong. Since we are missing the Workshop statement, could you please summarize very briefly in a few lines your view on the case as a whole?

Response[edit]

Well, let me start off by saying that Ryulong did not show a bit of trying to improve from what I can see until after the 2nd RfC was filed. Although he is appearing to improve, Ryulong has continued to use rollback in an improper manner. Some users who I've talked to about his use of rollback do not take my claims seriously.

Let me also say that until around the time the 2nd RfC, Ryulong would threaten to seek that I get blocked in a few content disputes, one in an AfD. One time, he made the following statement in an AfD directed towards me in his rationale of why he felt an article should be kept:

“	Notable characters of a notable television program, notability exists beyond the work of fiction itself. If you put anything else up for AFD with this same rationale (no sources, but you clearly know it's notable), I will seek that you be blocked Mythdon.	”
— Ryulong, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sky Tate

Later on, another user went to AN regarding that very statement and asked if such statements were okay, in which the community said it was not. This statement sparked controversy from many users, but this did not help anything.

Ryulong no longer threatens to get me blocked, or block other users. But, do I know if he'll start these things again after this case? I don't know. Will he stop using "undo" for edits that should reverted with the function? I don't know. The timing of the improvement raises many questions that I think need to be answered. Mythdon t/c 20:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2[edit]

Some experienced administrators and users believe that you are interpreting policies and guidelines in a 'strict way'. I have had a look at one of your essays though it has not been enough for me to make a clear opinion yet. For now, could you please help me assess the weight of those community members' view?

Response[edit]

This arbitration case is an example of users who think I am too strict on interpreting policy. Such users have been proposing principles, findings of fact, and remedies concerning it. Those proposals are at the Workshop subpage of Ncmvocalist. That's all I can say. —Mythdon t/c 19:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question 3[edit]

Do you believe that you are very attached to the articles you are editing with user:Ryulong? If yes, how?

Response[edit]

No. —Mythdon t/c 19:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question 4[edit]

user:Ryulong appears to have a view toward sourcing and notability different than yours. Could you elaborate on your view?

Response[edit]

I don't actually have a view. I just interpret policies and guidelines as follows:

All information must either be supported by a reliable source and citation or it will be removed. If information is only supported by a primary source, there are no sources that can justify the notability, regardless of whether it is actually notable or not.

If the information is true, but is unverifiable, it shall not be mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. —Mythdon t/c 19:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question 5[edit]

You've been approached by many users and adminsitrators at your talk page to talk about their concerns regarding your behavior. Have you thought that they made sense --at least some of them? Did you believe they have had some valid points? If yes, what actions have you taken to address them?

Response[edit]

Most of them, no. But, one time, I received a civility notification by an editor who participated in my first RfA telling me to "lighten up". I didn't think it made sense at first, but after a while, I realized that I had civility issues too, and have since began acting more civil towards other editors. I can provide a diff of the notification and a like to the RfA if you wish. —Mythdon t/c 19:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question 6[edit]

Do you think, as Hersfold states, that 'questionable' actions by user:Ryulong as an Administrator and Rollbacker may be a result of a frustration caused by user:Mythdon's behavior? Have you ever thought about changing approaches to get better results?

Response[edit]

Actions, no. Comments, maybe. See response 1 above, and take that as evidence. —Mythdon t/c 19:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question 7[edit]

What kind of assistance and advice have you sought? Do you believe the people you approached were helpful or not? If yes, how. If not, why?

Response[edit]

Just one, although it was dismissed, thus being unhelpful. It was an AN thread concerning Ryulong's use of rollback. The thread can be seen here. —Mythdon t/c 19:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question 8[edit]

My statement in reference to your request for Arbitrator Newyorkbrad at the Workshop's talk page was not intended as an argument set to convince. It was meant to be a statement of fact. You say it convinced you but that is not clear as an assertion; it could still be that you are still calling for Arbitrator Newyorkbrad to recuse. Could you explain it?

Response[edit]

I am no longer calling for Newyorkbrad to be recused, strictly because various editors have formed consensus he/she will not be recused. As for the statement, I was getting convinced that he/she should not be recused, but not fully convinced, as his/her statement on Ryulong's talk page is being used as evidence by Ryulong. Therefore, there could be a potential bias involved. —Mythdon t/c 19:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions to Hersfold[edit]

Question 1[edit]

You have added yourself as a party to the case. However, your statement doesn't appear to touch your involvement. Could you please assess/measure the degree of your involvement (apart from your RfC participation)?

Response[edit]

Ryulong has approached me multiple times since before the RFC opened for advice in dealing with Mythdon and other situations he has been involved in. Prior to the RFC, this was mainly "is this comment ok?" type questions, ensuring he was not being incivil towards Mythdon. During and since the RFC, these questions have tended more towards "is this rollbackable?" or "is it ok to block this user?". Much of this communication has been done through IRC - Ryulong and I are in the same time zone, and are often on IRC at the same time. I have sent ArbCom a series of logs detailing the advice I have been asked for and given; during the case, more of this has occurred, and I am able to email those logs if needed. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2[edit]

If you were user:Ryulong since day one, how would you have dealt with the situation?

Response[edit]

I would have made an effort to raise the issues I was having with Mythdon to a wider range of attention sooner rather than trying to deal with it solely myself. In looking through the archives of WP:ANI and WP:WQA, I find one report relating to Mythdon's behavior on Power Rangers articles, but it was made by an editor not involved with this case (For reference, I went through WQA until before Mythdon registered, ANI until mid-August 2008). Over-involvement seems to be one of the main issues here more than anything else; asking for advice is good, but not always sufficient when constantly dealing with someone who drives you up the wall. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question 3[edit]

If you were user:Mythdon since day one, how would you have dealt with the situation?

Response[edit]

Note of clarification: Where I say "policies" here, I mean "policies, guidelines, and other widely accepted practices."

I wouldn't have been as stubborn. Several of the discussions which have been shown in evidence or took place during this case have demonstrated how it often takes a horde of editors to get Mythdon to drop an issue when he gets his mind set on something. Wikipedia works on compromise and collaboration, not arguing a point until you're the last one talking. This goes along with the policy interpretations; were I Mythdon, I'd have tried to be more open to comments about how policies and guidelines on Wikipedia work and are handled. Ryulong has been editing Wikipedia for a little less than two years longer than Mythdon; myself almost exactly one year longer. While I won't attempt to say we have more knowledge of policies than Mythdon, since that is difficult to measure and would be condescending to boot, we do have more experience putting them into action in a wider range of situations, as do many others who have attempted to explain to Mythdon he's taking things too far. Being open to comments and criticism is critical to becoming a better editor. I'm sure this is something Mythdon aspires towards, since he clearly wishes others to be top-notch, as we've seen in his efforts to notify other editors of perceived breaches of policy. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question 4[edit]

Have you adviced the parties? If yes, What kind of advice have you have given them?

Response[edit]

I believe my answer to question 1 covers this for Ryulong fairly well; as for Mythdon, I've stepped in when requested to help explain situations to Mythdon and defer tensions in discussions; some of the later links Ryulong provided in his evidence show this, and I'll try to bring some into this response shortly. My advice to Mythdon has not been as involved as with Ryulong. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question 5[edit]

You state the following:

[user:Mythdon] take[s] excessively literally-minded interpretations of policies and guidelines that are largely intended to be flexible, and force those interpretations into situations where they do not adequately fit.

I'd like to hear from you about 'flexibility'.

Response[edit]

From Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means:

Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit.

[...]

The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored.

With some very limited exceptions, the largest and most non-negotiable of which I've just linked to, policies and particularly guidelines can be bent, and in some very limited cases (more limited than the exceptions previously mentioned) flat-out ignored. A wiki is by nature a volatile site, driven more by consensus of the community than it is by bureaucracy and set procedures. As a result, hard-and-fast rules are detrimental to Wikipedia's main goal of building a collaborative encyclopedia. The policies and guidelines are there to be followed in spirit, however for the most part it is the decision of the editors of a particular article to determine just how to follow them. To use a relevant example, TV episodes such as the ones WP:TOKU maintains are often very difficult to reference due to a lack of what would normally be considered reliable sources. However, given enough editors willing to put effort into maintaining the articles, enough less-than-reliable sources can be located which corroborate each other to together form an acceptable means of verifying the content of an article. If this is not found to be feasible, then the editors will find other ways to include the information; perhaps by collecting the episode summaries into a list, referenced to a handful of the semi-reliable sources previously mentioned. This whole scenario has bent several policies and guidelines - Verifiability, reliable sources, notability, and probably to some small degree a minor handful of others. Despite this, the editors have managed to provide a useful resource to readers of the project, without causing undue disruption. Had they, on the other hand, taken WP:V and WP:RS literally, they would have been unable to find enough sources for the article, or even the large list of episodes, and the whole lot would have been deleted or never posted in the first place, leaving the project without a large chunk of articles that together form a high interest base. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section is for the arbitrators to ask the parties specific and detailed questions about the case or questions that may arise depending on the course of the case and the answers of the other party. Each party is asked to respond to all questions from the arbitrators unless the arbitrator limits the scope of the question (e.g. Why did you do this). Please remember that you are responding to the arbitrator's question and not the other parties' responses. Answers should be submitted within 7 days of the Arbitrator(s) date stamp.

Additional note I don't believe there is a need to add any more questions to user:Hersfold. Parties are requested to try to answer the following questions before May 3 to allow us moving to the next stag as announced here.

Questions to Ryulong[edit]

Question 1[edit]

Your response to Mythdon on December 08 was

[today] was the first time you've ever mentioned this. The next time you screw up you are gone.

Why should I believe it is not a threat?

Response[edit]

There is no reason to believe it is not a block threat, and is one of the many instances where I have lost my patience in dealing with Mythdon. He began removing every single image from several articles (diffs can be provided if necessary), and I contacted User:Arrowned to take a look at the images that I put back on the articles (I may have used rollback on the edits because I felt that removing every single image from several articles in succession, including when there was only one image on the page, was blatantly unproductive) to see which ones were not necessary and could be removed and subsequently listed for deletion. Because he suddenly started removing every image, that was a warning to stop his unconstructive behaviors, or he would get blocked (at some point, and most definitely not by myself). After that, I felt that he did not make any major screw ups for some time in editing practices, and was simply a thorn in my side. I bit my tongue until my inappropriate behavior here which became a thread at AN(/I?) and received the community's criticism on it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2[edit]

Do you use IRC to discuss blocks (not unblocks) with other administrators? If yes, how?

Response[edit]

Yes. I contact another administrator and show him/her the contribs (or diff) from a user or IP who performed a series of questionable edits, explaining the situation to him/her, and then ask whether or not it would be helpful to block them. If he/she agrees that the user shouldAfter that, I ask about an appropriate length of time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question 3[edit]

On February 09, you used the Rollback to revert user:Mythdon in a situation which can be seen as a content dispute. A day later you said you 'clearly don't care'. That shows that a clear abuse of the tools and a very poor way of communication from an administrator. What do you think?

Response[edit]

The "I clearly don't care" thing was entirely unrelated to the use of rollback in the content dispute. It was Mythdon saying that he found a different edit that he thought was not something that should not have been rolled back, and I had lost my patience in having him point out every single rollback I've performed that he disagreed with. I've actually contacted MBisanz when Mythdon was doing this very action during the evidence phase of this case.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question 4[edit]

On March 2009, you reverted edits using the Rollback tool. That is clearly not valdalism but some may still understand it as a removal of unsourced content without an edit summary or {{fact tagging}}. That, among other similar instances- happened during your last RfC. What would be your reaction if it were user:Mythdon who did it?

Clarification - It concerns rollbacking unsourced edits. If user:Mythdon were the one who did the rollback to remove those unsourced edits, what would have been your reaction? A warning? Reporting him? Nothing?

Response[edit]

I do not understand what you mean by this question.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have really responded to the rollback at all if someone else had performed it. It was just a use of rollback for mundane article maintenance, which I have been advised is actually a content dispute (something I don't necessarily agree with, but I'll live with it and use undo in the future). The content is unsourced, but that was not the issue I had with it. It was way too much detail for that particular portion of the article and (in my opinion) did more harm than good to the article which is why I removed it, and because the content encompassed more than one edit I chose rollback over undo or going back into the article history.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question 5[edit]

In April 2, 2009 you used the Undo button but did not leave any edit summary. Note that this happened just after the case got accepted. What were your thinking when undoing the edit?

Response[edit]

I undid the edit and then modified the undid edit before saving the page. I occasionally do this and not modify the edit summary. It had not been part of my editing practices to elaborate on undid edits. I believe I have made steps to rectify this practice.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question 6[edit]

The reblocking of Ottava Rima is still an ambiguity. I know you have stated that you have little time to dig through your editing history to see what exactly went on with your block of Ottava Rima but I don't understand why the admin receiving the e-mails did not do it himself or at least asked you to do it. I'd trust any admin saying he's been getting e-mails abusively but I'd still not react immediately since some people may be exaggerating. Did you know how many e-mails user:Sandstein had got?

Response[edit]

I am not sure, but I am aware that he had been contacting various administrators concerning his block. I am fairly certain I had received a few emails, and I might have been aware that other administrators had been contacted about the block. It appeared that he had been requesting to be unblocked from several administrators, essentially "unblock shopping".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question 7[edit]

You were approached by Jimmy Wales back on 2006 regarding the use of the Rollback button even if didn't exist as a guideline. How long would you think we have to wait for editors —and administrators in general— we warn to behave better... the same long period? Do you agree that we need to agree about realistic dates and results?

Response[edit]

That was a "complaint" from Jimmy Wales concerning a single particular rollback that I had performed on his talk page concerning a user (who was indefinitely blocked a week after) who had placed a complaint on his talk page, after he had started discussion on WP:AN(/I?). Described fully in here, and then I think I managed to catch him on IRC some time afterwards to explain myself more. He was simply requesting that an edit summary be used on his talk page because of the nature of the request itself being normal fare for his page. I feel that it is entirely unrelated to this case as a whole, but realistic dates and results are important. Mythdon has been the only user who has come back over and over and over to say "stop doing that" and it was getting to be an annoyance and I mostly chalked it up to the way that he read policies and guidelines.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question 8[edit]

The preceding questions summarize the overall situation. As you may note from the above, those are questions about your a) administrative actions —such as blocks—, b) rollback issues, and c) the way you communicate. It did not include the IAR issue since that remains your personal business though I am personally not convinced of the manner you have handled it. Unless you disagree, what remedies do you believe would be suitable and effective to sort out those concerns immediately?

Response[edit]

I have made changes to all of my activities concerning the three points you discuss. I have (already) not made as many blocks on accounts; not made as many rollbacks on edits that, while I feel are not constructive, are not vandalism and opted to use the undo button instead (with an edit summary); and have attempted to try and discuss items with Mythdon with less prejudice against him concerning my loss of patience with him in the year leading up to the filing of this case. It is still because I like volunteering my time in the janitorial upkeep of this project that I do not believe that removing my administrative rights will be beneficial. I am now aware of how several users viewed blocks I have made and aware that my use of rollback prior to the 2nd RFC was not always within the new policies that had been crafted since it became a software right for all users. In this case, if I were to have my rights removed, it would only really affect my use of rollback, which is pretty much the only right I use on a daily basis. I don't block users on a daily basis as I had when I first had been given the tools or delete pages as much, but the majority of this case concerns my use of rollback with a few blocks that were added that I can completely defend if necessary (as I felt was the case during the 2nd RFC which is why I was dismissive of it for the most part). The instances where I block a user, where I use rollback, where I delete pages, or where I protect pages (which I don't really do anyway) that improve the integrity of the encyclopedia far outweigh the cases where I had lost my patience in interacting with Mythdon or used rollback in a manner that was not completely within the now written policies (in which undoing an edit and not modifying the edit summary is apparently also a part of). I hope that in the past month I made enough changes to my editing practices that the only user who would have any problems with edits or rollbacks would be Mythdon, as I felt was evident during the evidence phase (as I state above, and if necessary I can elaborate on this matter elsewhere).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions to Mythdon[edit]

Question 1[edit]

In your response to Question 7 above, you state that you've sought help just once. What stopped or prevented you pursuing further help?

Response[edit]

Nothing. —Mythdon t/c 04:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2[edit]

You responded with a firm 'no' to the general question #3 above. I am not convinced; your first edit ever was to Power Rangers: Ninja Storm while your last one as of today was a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu and a prior one to the article Power Rangers: RPM. What do you think?

Response[edit]

It is not an attachment. While it is the only group of articles I like to edit, I am not attached to them, as far as I can see. Those article edits were fixes. The talk page question was a question to dig deep. —Mythdon t/c 04:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question 3[edit]

Many users, including user:Ryulong, believe that many articles falling under the Power Rangers WikiProject Tokusatsu are mainly episodes that are hard to get them sourced. Should they be all deleted?

Response[edit]

Depends on if there are sources out there or not. If Day of the Dumpster has no reliable sources that can say the same as the article, it shall by all means, be deleted in hopes of fulfilling the goals of "verifiability". —Mythdon t/c 04:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question 4[edit]

this question is a complementary to #3 Why haven't you ever tried to open a wider discussion about how to deal with the whole situation? Are you aware that the Village Pump? The whole is a collaborative project so what about seeking opinion from other similar WikiProjects?

Response[edit]

I don't know. —Mythdon t/c 04:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question 5[edit]

In recent weeks, you've started to leave notes regarding the use of the Rollback tool at some users' talk pages. Some people may believe you are pursuing a campaign while some users may ask you to 'resist the temptation to change Wikipedia just to prove a point'. Why this sudden shift of focus?(this is an example)

Clarification - A shift of focus from Ryulong to other editors with regards to the use of the Rollback tool (from a particular situation to a more general one).

Response[edit]

I don't understand what you mean by "shift of focus". —Mythdon t/c 04:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I felt the need to start notifying other editors of their rollbacks. Such rollbacks need warnings and requests for explanation. Something like "you made an unjust rollback, could you please explain it?". —Mythdon t/c 19:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question 6[edit]

This question at his talk page seems to be made in good faith though Ryulong decided to remove it and explained it 'is not a pressing issue'. Why did you decide to repost it if you had already gotten an answer?

Response[edit]

Actually, that post was completely unrelated to the "is not a pressing issue" thing. I think that you misunderstood the post. The linked post is actually a "check out this userbox" post, while the preceeding one is a "does my userpage break any rules or has broken any rules?" kind of post. —Mythdon t/c 04:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question 7[edit]

Between late 2007 and late 2009 2008, you posted many questions for user:Ryulong to answer for you. Many of them are clearly made in good faith but many others remain questionable since they were clearly personal or very personal questions to ask. 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. Why should I believe they were made in good faith and not a kind of harassment?

Response[edit]

Because I was just getting curious and felt the want to ask such questions. Not an attempt of harassment or anything like that. Just foolish and dumb questions, I'd say. Also, you meant to type "late 2008", not "late 2009". —Mythdon t/c 04:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question 8[edit]

The preceding questions summarize the overall situation. As you may note from the above, those are questions about a) your general approach, b) communication ways and c) lack of collaboration. Unless you disagree, what remedies do you believe would be suitable to sort out those concerns immediately?

Response[edit]

I don't know what remedies would solve the situation. Although I do know that topic bans, preventing two editors from any communication, etc, are not going to solve the issues. —Mythdon t/c 04:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of the new evidences submitted here and to clarify them, I am adding a couple of questions for the parties and the users who submitted them. Answers should be submitted before May 6th, 2009.

Questions to Ryulong[edit]

Question 1[edit]

In your response to quetion #2 above (specific), you say that you do 'contact administrators and show him/her the contribs (or diff) from a user or IP who performed a series of questionable edits, explaining the situation to him/her, and then ask whether or not it would be helpful to block them. If he/she agrees that the user should [sic]... After that, you ask about an appropriate length of time.' Could you please talk about the details specific to the request you made to Bisanz on IRC in relation to Mythdon?

Response[edit]

I cannot recall the circumstances. I do not take logs and neither does MBisanz so there is no way for me to review what may have been the source of my request.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In your yesterday's IRC conversation with Bisanz you said: "Well, Mythdon yes, but not since the case started." Since when then?

I have had various problems with Mythdon's editing practices, and at many points I wished that he be blocked for a period of time. I cannot remember any particular time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2[edit]

How frequent do you make such requests on IRC and elsewhere if you have made any?

Response[edit]

I only make requests if I find that I've become too deeply involved in a dispute and I feel that the other individual is in the wrong and that I am supported by policy in the decision I would make but if I made the block, it would be wrong due to my involvement.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to this question, do you agree with the response #1 of MBisanz below? Could you please clarify if you partially or fully disagree?

It's a fair summary of the events, yes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question 3[edit]

What made you discuss the alleged identity of Mythdon with MBisanz? Have you discussed that with anyone else?

Response[edit]

I have been in contact with MBisanz over the course of the case for assistance in what I should post and what I should not post and generally treating him as a mentor and ear in the course of this case. In the past few weeks, I did take a look at the account on YouTube that did contact me a few months ago and discovered information concerning Mythdon through his profile there. I showed this page to MBisanz in jest, making note of the age reported. I don't know anything beyond what is stated on that page and I don't have any reason to make use of that information in any way.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who contacted you a few months ago? Do you refer to Mythdon's question at your talk page in relation to your identity or something else? This issue needs more clarification and I am also asking Mythdon below in parallel.

The user named "Mythdon" on YouTube contacted me via YouTube on my account "Ryulong" there. I blocked him via YouTube from contacting me, again, because it was just after he tried to ask if I was the same account on both websites. In retrospect, this was probably more than a few months ago. I had deleted the message on YouTube, but it was approximately around the same time as his comments on my talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question 4[edit]

The IP who harassed Mythdon hails from somewhere nearby your area. In your response to MBisanz, you denied being the IP who harassed Mythdon while blaming your University's geolocation for the similarity. Could you please explain here your stance? Also, do you know of any possibilities (i.e. who that might be, have you been approached by the IP, etc...)?

Response[edit]

That IP address is 182 miles away from me. That is not "nearby [my] area". I do not know who it is. I have no idea who it is. I did not make that edit. It is in Indialantic, Florida (according to the Geolocation data), and I am in Coral Gables, Florida (I can take a ten minute walk and take a photo of the BankUnited Center and then upload it to the Commons if I felt like it). Checkuser evidence can show that very clearly. I am extremely displeased that it is even being considered as evidence because it is extremely circumstantial at best.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Question 5[edit]

According to the IRC logs I received, you made a request for a move protect of the article GReeeeN to Risker. Since that wasn't something urgent, why did you choose to make it a private request on IRC when you could have just used WP:RFPP or WP:RPM?

Response[edit]

I really am no longer sure how those processes are handled anymore since I do not frequent the page protection or move request pages. A private request provides a much faster response, even if the matter is not urgent. I have not touched GReeeeN or Greeeen (wherever it is now) since I found that my particular reading of the naming policies did not match that of the majority of the users involved on that page on a regular basis. The only instance where I talk about blocks, deletions, or protections to other administrators in private off of Wikipedia is when I still feel that my actions would be in a grey area. I no longer go and ask "block this user", "block this IP", "protect this page", or "delete this" (unless it is a file I find during the normal upkeep of the articles I edit and it was uploaded to the Commons in error and should not be hosted on the Commons).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. On a somehow related question, Mythdon has requested to make the logs public; would you agree?

I would prefer to see these logs first before making that judgement call. I can't be sure as to what I've said and to whom for these logs to be made available to him. I might have said some incivil things that Mythdon need not know.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions to Mythdon[edit]

Question 1[edit]

You once asked Ryulong if he was the one you found on Youtube. Have you discussed that with anyone else, both in public and in private?

Response[edit]

No. —Mythdon t/c 00:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to this question... apart from the question you left at Ryulong's talk page, have you ever contacted Ryulong using any other channel?

I do not understand what you mean by "channel". —Mythdon t/c 04:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you contacted Ryulong off-wiki (via e-mail, in other websites, etc...)? If yes, please provide details.

Back in March 2008, I 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, and I 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, I attempted to ask again, but since the newer message didn't go through as far as I know, there was no response, which implies that the user blocked me from contacting him/her. Besides that, I have never attempted to contact Ryulong anywhere off-wiki. —Mythdon t/c 04:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In your recent attempt, are you are implying that the user who 'blocked' you from conatacing them is the Youtube user? Otherwise, I'd understand that you —using Wiki e-mail feature— contacted user:Ryulong. It is not clear yet.

Yes. As for the e-mail thing, I have never sent Ryulong any e-mails using Wikipedia or any e-mail thing. —Mythdon t/c 05:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions to MBisanz[edit]

Question 1[edit]

Could you please provide more detailed information —if any— in relation to evidence you sent ArbCom (i.e. diff of the IP harassing Mythdon, etc...) ?

Response[edit]

Here is the diff I noticed [1]. Also, about half a dozen other administrators have mentioned to me in the course of this case that Ryulong has asked them to perform admin actions, the requests spanning varying periods of time that date back two years at extreme and some indicated that they had warned him of the questionable nature of some of the requests. Other than that, the evidence looks fairly presented. MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. On a somehow related question, Mythdon has requested to make the logs public; would you agree? I'd have no further question unless needed after Ryulong's responses.

I wouldn't mind, as long as any other usernames are *'d out, as I believe some of the names I mentioned may have RTV'd and I wouldn't want to draw attention to their old accounts. MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions to Risker[edit]

Question 1[edit]

Is there any more detailed information in relation to the evidence you presented to ArbCom?

Response[edit]

I have not identified any further information than that which I provided to the Arbitration Committee. Risker (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. On a somehow related question, Mythdon has requested to make the logs public; would you agree?

I do not have a problem with the logs being made public; usual practice, however, is that both parties to a private conversation should agree. Thus, Ryulong should also be asked. Risker (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes indeed... Ryulong has been asked as well.

This section is reserved to the parties Proposed Decisions drafts. Parties are requested to create a page as a subpage to this workshop page (eg; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Workshop/Username-PD), and link to it in one of the sections below. Once the case is closed, the Clerks will copy the party Proposed Decision and post it here for convenience.

Proposed Decision by Mythdon[edit]

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Workshop/Mythdon-PD

Proposed Decision by B[edit]

• Link to PD (subpage)

This section is reserved to the non-parties Proposed Decisions drafts. Non-parties are requested to create a page as a subpage to this workshop page (eg; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Workshop/Username-PD), and link to it in one of the sections below. Once the case is closed, the Clerks will copy each Proposed Decision and post it here for convenience.

Proposed Decision by Hersfold, Ncmvocalist, Synergy and Tiptoety[edit]

• Hersfold, Ncmvocalist, Synergy and Tiptoety PD

• Summary of the PD

Proposed Decision by B[edit]

• Link to PD (subpage)

Proposed Decision by C[edit]

• Link to PD (subpage)

Proposed Decision by D[edit]

• Link to PD (subpage)

• ArbCom PD