Jump to content

User talk:Ryulong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fractyl (talk | contribs) at 11:04, 20 April 2007 (→‎Gekiwazas). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page by using either the "new section" tab or this link.
Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). If you do not sign your comments, I may remove them entirely.
Please keep your comments short and to the point. I do not want to read essays on this page.
I will revert and ignore any basic template messages used on my talk page. If you want to talk to me, use your own words.
I prefer to keep conversations on one page. If I left a message for you on your user talk page, I prefer to respond to you there.
My local time:
June 2024
Wednesday
10:12 pm EST
Archives
  1. 2—6/06
  2. 7/06
  3. 8/06
  4. 9/06
  5. 10/06
  6. 11/06
  7. 12/06
  8. 1/07
  9. 2/07
  10. 3/07
  11. 4/07
  12. 5/07
  13. 6/07
  14. 7/07
  15. 8/07
  16. 9/07
  17. 10/07
  18. 11/07
  19. 12/07
  20. 1/08
  21. 2/08
  22. 3/08
  23. 4/08
  24. 5/08
  25. 6/08
  26. 7/08
  27. 8/08
  28. 9/08
  29. 10/08
  30. 11/08
  31. 12/08
  32. 1/09
  33. 2/09
  34. 3/09
  35. 4/09
  36. 5/09
  37. 6/09
  38. 7/09
  39. 8/09
  40. 9/09
  41. 10/09
  42. 11/09
  43. 12/09
  44. 1/10
  45. 2/10
  46. 3/10
  47. 4/10
  48. 5/10
  49. 6/10
  50. 7/10
  51. 8/10
  52. 9/10
  53. 10/10
  54. 11/10
  55. 12/10
  56. 1/11
  57. 2/11
  58. 3/11
  59. 4/11
  60. 5/11
  61. 6/11
  62. 7/11
  63. 8/11
  64. 9/11
  65. 10/11
  66. 11/11
  67. 12/11
  68. 1/12
  69. 2/12
  70. 3/12
  71. 4/12
  72. 5/12
  73. 6/12
  74. 7/12
  75. 8/12
  76. 9/12
  77. 10/12
  78. 11/12
  79. 12/12
  80. 1/13
  81. 2/13
  82. 3/13
  83. 4/13
  84. 5/13
  85. 6/13
  86. 7/13
  87. 8/13
  88. 9/13
  89. 10/13
  90. 11/13
  91. 12/13
  92. 1/14
  93. 2/14
  94. 3/14
  95. 4/14
  96. 5/14
  97. 6/14
  98. 7/14
  99. 8/14
  100. 9/14
  101. 10/14
  102. 11/14
  103. 12/14
  104. 1/15

When I find that the conversations or issues discussed here have either ended or resolved, they will be inserted into my archives at my own discretion.—Ryūlóng


Lakers (talk · contribs)

You have blocked Lakers for being a sockpuppet, but the sockpuppet case was declined in the second part, where Lakers came up, and I have seen numorous good contributions from the recent changes patrol from that user. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. Would it least be fair to give Lakers a chance to appeal the case? Is there criticially significant evidence that Lakers is a sock, having done so much anti-vandal work?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there must have been a side to the case that made it evident.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artaxiad is banned. Plain and simple—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gekiwazas

I posted up a suggestion WikiProject Tokusatsu, but no one's other you is answering it. I'm just frustrated. Fractyl

We're a diffuse group :/. Also, you are doing ~~~~, right?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am, but I'm making sure everthing is perfect. Maybe you can help me with Rio & Mele's catch phrases. The English I can do easily, but it's hard to find said text in kanji and japanese. But I found the kanji 師, meaning "Master" or "Mistress".
  • Rio: As Purely Fierce as a lion, as powerful as a lion. I am one destined to rule the world. I am the Black Lion...Rio. (Takeki koto, shishino gotoku, tsuyoki koto, mata shishino gotoku. ???.Ore wa Kurojishi...Rio.)
  • Mele: I live for Lord Leo's love, I am the Love Warrior who fights for my Lord Leo's love! Rinjuu Chameleon-Fist Mistress, Mele! (理央様の愛のために生き!理央様の愛のために戦うラブウォリア！臨獣カメレオン拳師, メレ!, Rinjū Kamereonkenshi, Mere!)

Fractyl

I think we should wait a bit. And type ~ 4 times in a row! D: Not 3, not 5.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 17:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the 2nd time both said their respective lines. Those lines will be added soon now. Fractyl 03:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:D You did it! So long as you have the kanji for it, though.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't know the kanji, hence asking for your help with it. Fractyl 11:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

"No one in their right mind would lift the ban on Daniel Brandt. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

"19:25, 18 April 2007 Jimbo Wales (Talk | contribs) unblocked Daniel Brandt (contribs) (Courtesy unblock, he asked nicely, we are talking about a productive way forward in the future, it has been more than a year)"

-- Ben TALK/HIST 21:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators ≠ Jimbo.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"No one", not "no administrator". -- Ben TALK/HIST 21:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, m:Don't be a dick, Ben.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are two reasons I keep a palm-sized crystal ball on my desk. One of them is to use it as a magnifying glass. The other is to remind me of what I can't do. I recommend it for both reasons. -- Ben TALK/HIST 21:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL is articles only.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits to WP:CN

Greetings. Please do not remove comments from talk pages as you did here and and here. Those comments are germane to the talk discussion and removal is not recommended at WP:TALK. With best regards, Navou banter 01:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link to WP:CRYSTAL was an "I told you so" on the part of Ben. It had no bearing on the discussion itself.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking the range 88.154.0.0/16

This range seems to be used by the Israeli ISP Bezeq International, and I think it should not be blocked for a month since it blocks many users who connect through this ISP. Thanks. – rotemliss – Talk 10:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of new accounts posting at CSN

Hi Ryulong, I noticed your block of those new accounts, but from what I could see they were civil, contributing to the discussion, and were not violating WP:SOCK. There is clearly a good reason for them to protect their main account, consistent with SOCK, due to Brandt's continuing campaign of attacks and harassment of our editors. I believe there is consensus to overturn your block, but it would be nice if you could review your actions and hopefully do so yourself. Thank you, Crum375 23:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these blocks were poorly conceived. I see no violation of WP:SOCK and blocking these accounts (who we all know are probably pretty well respected under their usual usernames) was more likely to inflame the situation than calm it. What I find trully amazing was that they were apparently blocked with autoblocks enabled. So after finding out people were uncomfortable posting with their regular names, you put pressure on them to reveal the connection between their account and their sock or stay autoblocked? I hope that was a mistake on your part because it seems pretty harsh to me. Most people try to pour water on the flames in this situation- you seem to have opted for lighter fuel instead. WjBscribe 02:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I unblocked Infodmz

  1. 23:30, 19 April 2007 David Gerard (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Infodmz (contribs) (second account taking care of not breaking sock rules; blocking admin away, asked nicely)

They asked for an unblock as apparently you weren't on hand, and wanted the account so they could talk about the Daniel Brandt unblocking without possible retribution from Brandt directed at their real account and say they'll take care not to appear to generate false consensus (which would violate sockpuppet rules). If it's who I think it is from writing style I think they'll be good for this.

Apparently there's more than one admin using a pseudonym in that discussion who's fallen to an autoblock because of a blocked pseudonym.

Anyway, this one should be fine I think. Probably there are others that will, but I'm going to bed now and hoping I don't wake up to a mess where I have to mutter that fatal word: "oops ..." - David Gerard 23:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking User:ForPrivacyConcerns

With the utmost of respect, I'm unblocking ForPrivacyConcerns (talk • contribs) as you are still away. I don't mean to tread on your toes, and I apologize in advance for any offense, it's not my intention. We can discuss this in more depth if you'd like when you get back, but the person contacted me privately, and I understand why they have fear/concern for their safety. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

You may allready be aware of this, but I thought I should let you know that it looks like User:Cascadia has started a RFC about you. Just thought you should know. -Mschel 00:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cascadia has agreed to my deleting the RfC pending further discussions with you about the matter. WjBscribe 02:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm advised that the RfC is being deleted. Before that happened, though, I had submitted an outside view, which I'd respectfully urge you to take a look at and think about. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have just returned from my meeting. I will be reading the content of WP:CN concerning my blocking. I will not reinstate blocks, at all.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the commentary by you, Brad, I am going to say here that I also had been consulting with a couple of other administrators. One believed it was "disgusting" that the alternate accounts were in use. And another also agreed that the use of the alternate accounts should not have been in use.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is good to know. I disagree with those other admins as well but your actions are more understandable with that additional information. It might have reduced criticism if you had mentioned it when you announced the blocks. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was on my way out and I was debating on whether or not I should have gone through with it for a few hours (while simultaneously researching for a term paper). I probably should not have enacted the autoblocks, in hindsight (as it appears to have affected everyone). I should have done that immediately, but I had to rush out.
Also, as a side note, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryulong are only salted because of sockpuppet activity.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Postponed

Ryulong, WJBscribe suggested that the RfC I opened in regards to your actions today be postponed, and I agreed.

There is an enormous issue with the actions that you've taken today in blocking editors using sock puppets within the guidelines of WP:SOCK. The editors using those temporary sockpuppets, including myself, did so to prevent any undo harassment as a result of commenting in the discussion at WP:CSN. I've been the victim of off-wiki harassment before, and decided this time that I would not open myself up to that. It was clear from the beginning that people had issues with these preventative measures by myself and other editors. Claims of trolling and attempting to alter the debate spread like wildfire. All editors using such socks explained that they were independent users acting to prevent backlash.

Your decision to arbitrarily block all users you perceived as sockpuppets (and I say it this way because I understand one of those blocked was an actual account) was one that could have had drastic implications for those involved. In effect, by blocking those accounts, you were calling the editors out. Something that the topic of the discussion had done in the past: Outing-editors. Only you didn't out real names and other information, you created a situation where editors had few options: Out themselves, or try to find a sympathetic admin to unblock. To make matters worse, you disappeared. Other editors who were not directly involved in the block asked you to revert your actions, but you had already gone. Other admins were forced to clean up the situation.

Your actions showed blatant disregard for not only policy (WP:AGF, WP:SOCK), but a disregard for the privacy and safety of those involved. As such, I personally find your actions inexcusable.

My personal preference of moving forward would be for you to voluntarily desysop. I also admit this is asking a lot of an admin, but I feel your actions warrant such a request.

I will continue to discuss this issue with you until discussion comes to a dead end. Thank you. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 02:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whole response/Formal apology

I apologize that I was not here when all of the major discussion was going on. I had left to go to dinner and a club meeting this evening. If I had the chance, I would have unblocked all that I had blocked, and remove the autoblocks myself. I realize my mistake now, and I apologize to all of those that had been affected by my wrong action.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to let this all die, assuming you grasp the grave consequences of such actions that could have come about. I was hoping for something more than a "I'm sorry, I won't do it again" response, but I find that anything more than that may be hard to achieve. Could I request that you add yourself to "Category:Administrators open to recall" as a condition for me letting this die? CASCADIAHowl/Trail 03:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I'm uninvolved with this, but a) I totally agree with you Cascadia (and others) that this was a severe mis-step and misjudgement, but b) I personally think it's unreasonable of you to ask this editor to take a step with such long-term possible consequences. I think the sincere apology and promise never to repeat is sufficient. This issue will live on in WP history, and can be revived as evidence if necessary. Anchoress 03:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had removed myself from the category a few weeks ago due to dealing with a crapload of sockpuppetry. I will have to rethink my addition back to the category.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)The problem is too many people feel that such major misjudgments and use of admin power can be simply resolved by saying "I'm sorry and won't do it again". The actions had potentially severe consequences for those involved (I yet don't know if anything has occurred). That was the whole point for people using the accounts in the first place. All I am asking that Ryulong to make himself open for recall in the future, partly as a self-imposed discipline, partly act of good faith. I have no intention for asking him to recall should he agree to this. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 03:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. No hard feelings (although the autoblock was annoying). I see no reason for desysopping (as suggested above). Throwaway account 111 03:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I had been online, I would have done everything myself. I left around 5 hours ago at this time, and was unaware of the more pressing repercussions of my actions. I did not think it was related to having been harassed before, but more of not wanting to be harassed in the future.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it matters whether people had been harassed in the past or feared such harassment in the future. The fact that contributors on this site feel too threatened to post using their normal usernames seems to me one of the most troubling elements of this own affair. WjBscribe 03:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is also a reason that I factored into my earlier blocking. People shouldn't be afraid of anything concerning internet arguments.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They shouldn't but they are... this the whole reason the US Government has a CyberCrimes division. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 03:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think the CyberCrimes division covers arguments; I think it's more identity theft and scams and whatnot. I don't really follow that news, though.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or in the case of this situation, people being threatened, menaced, having attempts made to get them fired at their real jobs, etc. You were aware of that, I assume? Your text above seems to suggest you may not be. That's why so many people sought anonymity, and why your a:blocks and b:setting of autoblocks was so dangerous. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware (or I simply do not recall at this moment in time, my memory sucks like that) that those threats were made.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the posts by those spas before you took action? They seemed pretty clear about their motivation for not using their normal accounts... WjBscribe 04:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had read some of the comments, but did not see that the anonymity went as deep as the actual calling of an editor's workplace. I merely saw the issues concerning the hivemind site.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The more you know: University of Dayton: Cybercrimes Wiredsafety: Cyberstalking / Harassment Cyber-rights.org, Cyberstalking Articles. There's more out there, just some jump-off resources. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 04:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings, just slow down on the itchy block finger. ;) FWIW, the stalking is pretty crazy. Even romantic interests (not just employers) were in some cases tracked down, as well as family. Thanks for understanding, Infodmz 05:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryulong&oldid=124330703"