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

Indeed. Synergy 15:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Administrative decorum

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

Comment by others:

Proposed. Tiptoety ^talk 21:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that making it more narrow drives the point home, particularly when other issues like baiting will also be looked into. ~~But if my interpretation is correct, I think understand what you are trying to say - I'll leave another proposal for discussion some time next week.~~ Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I like the extension. It places a distinction on editor and admin. Synergy 15:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Spirit versus letter

2) Wikipedia's policies and guidelines should not be interpreted mechanically, with a focus on their letter, but commonsensically, with a focus on their spirit or purpose.

Comment by others:

Standard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Spirit versus letter

2a) Wikipedia's

rules should be ignored

provided there is a clear reason for doing so and the result does not cause further disruption.

Comment by parties:

Based on Ncmvocalist and proposed.

a/c) 19:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

~~Abstaining for now; considering whether IAR may deserve a principle of its own.~~ ~~Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)~~ Per proposal below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

There's no such word as "commonsensically". Suggest rewording to read "...with common sense and a focus on spirit or purpose." Risker (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enacting that suggestion may lead to confusion, given that "with a focus on their letter" precedes your suggested rewording. But I'll propose a similar wording below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit versus letter

2b) Wikipedia's

rules should be ignored

provided there is a clear reason for doing so and the result does not cause further disruption.

Comment by others:

Proposed as alternative to 2a. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by Arbitrators:

"further" implies prior disruption; in many cases IAR gets applied to deal with non-disruptive situations. I suggest "consecutive", "underlying" or nothing. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think what it is trying to say is that as long as the disruption caused by using the rule exceeds the disruption caused by ignoring it, then we should ignore the rule. Though I agree, with the current wording, that could be interpreted differently from what is intended. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point but it is not always the case. Things (policies or guidelines) that prevent someone from improving or maintaining Wikipedia are not necessarily disruptive. They can be just preventing and not/never disrupting. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true; I agree with your suggestion of nothing - if it's possible to include my earlier point on this (maybe in a separate line), then that would be useful too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baiting and trolling

3) Editing in a manner so as to intentionally provoke other editors goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors.

Comment by others:

Proposed. I note that the principle in the Fringe science decision unduly focussed more on tendentious problem editing (which is a separate issue of its now). To be frank, it was overly narrow and unsatisfactory in defining this much broader issue.Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Noted.

a/c) 19:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

Noted. Tiptoety ^talk 20:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Synergy 15:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I am not sure if "intentionally" is warranted here but I still have to look in depth at the FoFs to see if I am wrong. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I haven't used the words baiting or trolling in Fof's to ensure intent doesn't become an issue, but still leaving it open to interpretation, and of course, raising this for awareness. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment

4) It is completely unacceptable for any editor to harass another. See the anti-harassment policy, Wikipedia:Harassment. Acts of harassment damage the editing environment and may deter contributors from continuing to edit Wikipedia. Moreover, any user conduct or comments that another editor could reasonably perceive as harassing or threatening should be avoided. Where a series of actions or comments causes an editor to reasonably feel harassed, then even if this result may have been inadvertent, the user who made the comment should take immediate steps to address the concern, even if this involves complying with requests to disengage. However, charges of harassment or similar misconduct should not be made lightly or unnecessarily.

Comment by others:

Proposed. Mechanisms to deal with harassment are being gamed, so this is sadly the only way to add some emphasis. Tweaked since Abtract-Collectonian case in light of the several other (but often legitimate) claims of harassment that have been made in the past year alone; often, these problems can be avoided through voluntary measures. Also tweaked to clarify to those users who often don't understand the seriousness of such a claim – i.e. it should not be used inappropriately. Others should not contribute to a user feeling harassed – that would be inappropriate, but no need to elaborate in this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Administrators

5) Administrators are trusted members of the community. They should lead by example and behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with other editors. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes by administrators are understandable, but consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.

Comment by others:

Proposed. Take from RFAR/MZMcBride. Tiptoety ^talk 05:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Noted.

a/c) 19:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

Noted. Synergy 15:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Administrator communications

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

Comment by others:

Proposed. Taken from RFAR/SemBubenny. Tiptoety ^talk 05:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Noted.

a/c) 19:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

Noted. Synergy 15:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Administrator judgment on issue selection

7) Administrators should bear in mind that at this stage in the evolution of Wikipedia, they have hundreds of colleagues. Therefore, if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil and open to communication while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct of his or her own.

Comment by others:

Proposed. Taken from RFAR/SemBubenny. Tiptoety ^talk 05:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, but I'm not yet convinced that it is needed here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC) I favour principle 12.1 as a broader measure. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Noted with similar concerns to Ncmvocalist.

a/c) 19:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

Noted. Synergy 15:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Use of administrator tools in a dispute

8) Administrative tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content dispute.

Comment by others:

Proposed. Taken from RFAR/Dbachmann. Tiptoety ^talk 05:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Noted.

a/c) 19:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

Noted. Synergy 15:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't know if Ryulong used the tools that way or not, I do know that he has used these threats that can potentially make him win a dispute improperly. —Mythdon t/c 21:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Rollback

9) The rollback tool allows administrators, and rollbackers to quickly perform reverts. It should be used with caution and restraint, in part because it does not allow adding an explanation to the automatic edit summary. The rollback tool should not be used to perform any revert which ought ordinarily to be explained, such as a revert of a good-faith content edit, and should not be used in content disputes.

Comment by others:

Proposed. Taken in part from RFAR/Dbachmann. Tiptoety^talk 05:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Noted. Synergy 15:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Rollback

9a) The

banned

users who are not allowed to make those edits, rollback may also be used in circumstances where widely spread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, since such edits would be tedious to revert manually. However, unless explanation is provided in another appropriate location, such as at a relevant talk page, the rollback tool should not be used to perform any revert which ought to be explained ordinarily, such as reverts of good-faith content edits.

Comment by others:

I note that the part about content disputes written by Tiptoety wasn’t what was written in Dbachmann case, and I can understand why. Proposed with tweaks to help clarify, as well as to accommodate the then-views of Thebainer, Newyorkbrad, Uninvited Company, Fred Bauder and FT2. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Noted.

a/c) 19:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

"judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia"... by whom? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That can depend on the case; though probably the most relevant example I can think of (that this could apply to) is where the community come to a consensus that certain cats will be excluded from certain articles, yet an editor has inserted the cats into a large number of articles. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

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

Comment by others:

Standard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Tiptoety ^talk 20:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Noted. Synergy 15:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Education and warnings

11) When it appears that a user has been editing in good faith but has violated Wikipedia's policies or guidelines out of ignorance or misunderstanding, administrators should be sure a reasonable effort is made to educate and reason with the user before imposing blocks.

Users amenable to changing their behavior should be given the opportunity to do so before blocks are imposed.

Comment by others:

Standard; to confirm the principle, without prejudice to the Fofs. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Noted. Synergy 15:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Know yourself

12) It is important for all users, but especially administrators, to be aware of their own agendas, feelings and passions, and to deal with them appropriately, avoiding both biased editing and ill-considered administrative actions.

Comment by others:

Standard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Tiptoety ^talk 20:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Noted. Synergy 15:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't believe this is necessary at all. You've already got Principles 5 and 6 which already cover the essentials. You can still merge it into one of them if you believe otherwise. -- Fayssal-F - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See 12.1 as an alternative to 7. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Know yourself

12.1) It is important for all users, but especially administrators, to be aware of their own agendas, feelings and passions, and to deal with them appropriately, rather than potentially exercise poor judgement to compound the problem. Users should bear in mind that at this stage in the evolution of Wikipedia, there are hundreds of administrators. Therefore, if a user finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil and open to communication while addressing a given issue, then the user should not hesitate in requesting for assistance and bringing attention to the issue at a relevant or appropriate venue (such as a noticeboard).

Comment by others:

Proposed for consideration as broader alternative to #7. This alternative allows users (not just administrators) to use whatever appropriate means possible to settle an issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by Arbitrators:

I am still not sure about this principle the way it is being presented. Probably the title sounds more imperative and less academic. Also, #7 is specific to administrators while this one concerns editors as well. You may probably exclude 'administrators' from this principle. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd left administrators with a special mention seeing they have more actions that they need to be careful of, other than normal editing tools, but the mention could be omitted as somewhat moot given it applies to editors too. I'm not thrilled by this 'know yourself' title, but I wasn't by 'judgment on issue selection' either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment/User conduct

13) A

user-conduct request for comment

("RfC/U") represents a forum in which editors may raise concerns about the conduct of a fellow editor or administrator. Although this procedure can be misused, when utilized in good faith, it presents an editor with the opportunity to learn that concerns exist about his or her conduct, respond to the concerns, and if appropriate adjust his or her conduct. Civility and decorum are especially important in the highly charged atmosphere of a user-conduct RfC.

Comment by others:

Proposed. Instead of undermining this step like in some other cases, this might help. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Sanctions and circumstances

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

Comment by others:

Standard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I very much agree with this, and while the committee should look at the situation as a whole, the good a certain user has done for the project does not excuse their poor behavior. Tiptoety^talk 21:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Noted. Synergy 15:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed findings of fact

Ryulong

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

Comment by others:

Proposed. Tiptoety ^talk 05:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I also note that Ryulong exercised a lot of clue in imposing a block for this less clear-cut situation that other admins backed away from.Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dedication is inappropriate. "Activity" is more appropriate. Dedication implies that he is a net benefit, which has not been proven; quite to the contrary. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Noted.

a/c) 19:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

Noted. Synergy 15:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Mythdon

2) Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing Wikipedia since December 2007. During that time, he has shown a strong interest in the same content area as Ryulong, and the two have interacted frequently.

Comment by parties:

Proposed.

a/c) 19:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

Absolutely correct, without dispute. —Mythdon t/c 02:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

~~Not sure this is needed; if it is, it needs to have some more stuff I think. Otherwise, skipping this should be ok.Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)~~ On reconsideration, this is okay, but the last part of the second sentence is redundant with the beginning words of the next proposal. Ncmvocalist(talk)[reply]

Should be less redundant if #3 is replaced with #5 as proposed.

a/c) 03:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

Ok, though I think the latter part of #3 is undisputed and could still be left somewhere. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Synergy 15:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of "dedication" implies an inappropriate bias against a user. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Ryulong and Mythdon's interactions

3) Ryulong and Mythdon have frequently interacted with each other in the course of article writing, mostly negatively. During these interactions, Mythdon has certifiably shown a continually strict interpretation of policies, and Ryulong has grown gradually more impatient with Mythdon as a result, multiple times stating that he would seek Mythdon be blocked for disruption.

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Again reminding all that ArbCom has stated they're looking at everyone's conduct here, not just Ryulong's.

a/c) 19:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

Accompanying example diffs would be good here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will be adding some soon from the evidence Ryulong provided; the hard part will be sorting through them all to find some that are usable examples that don't require too much further reading.

a/c) 20:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

Not sure I agree completely with this. When Mythdon and Ryulong first started interacting, it was on a positive note. I am not sure the "mostly negatively" part is completely accurate. Tiptoety ^talk20:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was positive because Ryulong was appropriately assuming good faith. When Mythdon's questions grew more and more inane, he quickly lost patience and things went downhill from there.

a/c) 21:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

Disagree with "mostly". Synergy 15:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend this be removed and replaced with proposal 5 below.

a/c) 03:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

The term "certifiably" is completely inappropriate. The language is also against Mythdon, whereas the constant RfCs have found that Ryulong is the one abusing power and privilege. Admin are to uphold the policies and guidelines, whereas Mythdon is the only one that evidence has shown attempting to do such. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I agree with the observations of Tiptoety, Synergy and parts of Ottave Rima's comment (i.e. certifiably). Also, this FoF has nothing to do with #5; again, this case is about the behavior of both users and not Mythdon alone. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong and Mythdon's interactions

3.1) Ryulong and Mythdon have frequently interacted with each other in the course of article writing, particularly within WikiProject Tokusatsu. On many occasions, Mythdon would leave notes on Ryulong's talk page, but Ryulong generally found these to be unhelpful or lack validity.

Comment by others:

Proposed alternative to #3; as addition to 5.1 - let's not obfuscate the point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Response to complaints about rollbacks

4) Several editors posted to Ryulongs's talkpage in regards to the rollbacks. Some protested the rollbacks, while others asked the reasons for them or expressed concern about potential violation of

policy. Ryulong's responses to some of the queries were cursory, while others were reverted

by Ryulong.

Proposed. Tiptoety ^talk 21:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not broad enough - many of Ryulong's actions (blocks, deletions, rollbacks, etc) have been questioned and lacked appropriate responses. This is not limited to rollbacks, but to a set series of actions as a whole. Ryulong has been proven to refuse to listen to any critique of his actions or accept any outside viewpoint. This is a lack of communication and civility. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Noted. Synergy 15:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Mythdon's interpretations of policy

5) Throughout his time on Wikipedia, Mythdon has repeatedly shown an excessively strict, at times bordering on disruptive, interpretation of policies, as seen in these discussions: [1] [2] [3]. This has led to several confrontations between Mythdon, Ryulong, and other editors in their interactions within WikiProject Tokusatsu and elsewhere.

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This should show a better level of detail on Mythdon's involvement than my previous proposal (Ryulong and Mythdon's interactions)

a/c) 03:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

Okay, I'll admit that I was wrong during this discussion as I made the wrong interpretation of a policy, but the other two, they were perfectly fine. This one may have been a bit extreme, but I think it was still justified. —Mythdon t/c 03:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, as do the other editors who were discussing with you in both those discussions. I further feel as though both of these have been explained more than sufficiently by those editors.

a/c) 03:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

Completely inappropriate. We have these guidelines and proposals because they are the wide consensus of the community. Such a finding is an attack upon the consensus procedure and our policies and guidelines as a whole. Enforcement of an action is never problematic when it preserves the encyclopedic integrity. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's completely inappropriate to problematically destroy the integrity of this encyclopedia. Policies and guidelines are not prescriptive about very basic common sense, even if some people foolishly treat it as so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for expressing your blatant disregard for community wide consensus in determining such policies and guidelines. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Mythdon's mechanical interpretations of policy

5.1) Mythdon has repeatedly interpreted policies and guidelines mechanically, with a focus on their letter (example, example, example). This led to several confrontations between Mythdon and other editors including Ryulong, particularly within WikiProject Tokusatsu. Ryulong has gradually grown more impatient with Mythdon following some of these discussions ([4]), and has sometimes stated that he would seek that Mythdon be blocked for disruption (example, example).

Comment by others:

Proposed as alternative to #3 and #5. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)slightly modified[reply]

As an admin, Ryulong is expected to uphold policies and guidelines. Instead of being "impatient", Ryulong should have acted on Mythdon's concerns. His failure to do what is proper should not be seen as appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When concerns are unfounded, there is no need; particularly on the occasions where it's tendentious nonsense - no user is expected to even tolerate that behaviour. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong, as all admin, are expected to uphold the encyclopedic integrity and respect users. Ryulong has direspected users and the encyclopedic integrity. To defend his actions is to have utter contempt for this encyclopedia and its users. He did 100% opposite of what he is supposed to do. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Good summary.

a/c) 18:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

This cannot be taken as an alternative to #3 and #5 for the simpliest reason that this deals with user:Mythdon. #3 is fine though the wording should be reviewed in a whole. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly tweaked. The point of this was to show that #3 lacks context that this same behaviour/approach has affected far more than just the subject of this case. I would rather avoid the need for an RfC, a request for arbitration in a month's time and subsequent harsher remedy proposals - I believe it's necessary to address his general approach (rather than start off by limiting a look to his interactions with Ryulong alone). I came to this conclusion based on the above diffs, his responses to the concerns, which would be, and have been, no different in RfCs. This is now in addition to 3.1, for clarity. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "general approach"? —Mythdon t/c 22:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That outlined in this Fof proposal, as well as others that concern you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mythdon policing other editors

6) Recently, Mythdon has taken to patrolling through edits with the stated purpose to "look for rollbacks" to question editors about potential misuse of the tool. These notes have been viewed as unnecessary and irritating by several of the questioned editors: [5] [6] [7]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This behavior is very troubling to me, particularly when at least three of the four cases cited by JPG-GR

a/c) 03:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

The editors warned in the diffs provided in this proposal do not act irritated in any way. Two of them act really civil and respectful, the one from Bearcat is average (not incivil, average). There's no trolling in warning users regularly about rollback. In the warnings, if you dig deep enough, you'll find that some were simply disagreeing, and I just followed through on what they said. I am not saying I made the best warnings, but still. Although not directly related to the proposal, I deny that there is any harassment, incivility, reversals of the rollbacks, assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks, etc, in the warning discussions, which I'd like to say before any (further) assumptions are made about this evidence. —Mythdon t/c 05:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This is not accurate (see alternative below). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People who abuse power are irritated by those who seek to do what is right. This should not be seen as problematic. Instead, problem makers -should- be irritated and, hopefully, chased off of the encyclopedia for the betterment of the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that earlier, you've expressed your opinion that the block Ryulong imposed on you last year was an abuse of his tools. Is that also your opinion of the subsequent blocks that were imposed on you - including that which was imposed on you upon my own request last year? Despite the content you were producing at the time of that block, there were a number of users who thought you were a problem maker - according to your own stated belief at this very venue, it seems you should've been irritated and chased off the project by those users, if they believed it was the betterment of this project. Can you please clarify those issues? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how 4 of the blocks were directly related to the same situation, in which multiple admin were working together and violating the CoI requirements, I don't really think you have any grounds to make such claims. Seeing as how this same group of people stated at the NLT talk page that I was blocked for "edit warring" (restoring consensus version during a discussion that was being altered in a way that goes against WMF principles) while those like thebainer, Swatjester, and NewyorkBrad both spoke on the talk page in defense of the language that I restored, it seems that my position was quite strong. Seeing as how I was blocked further by Ryulong because many admin started contacting him directly confronting him over his action is just further verification that what he did was inappropriate. Is Ryulong corrupt? Yes. Are his actions destruction to the encyclopedia? Yes. Have they always been? Yes. Ryulong should never have been made an admin, and should have been blocked a very long time ago. His actions from the very beginning have only harmed this community. If ArbCom indef blocks him and never lets him back, then the community will only be the better for it. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Mythdon policing other editors

6.1)

(A) Mythdon has taken to patrolling through recent changes to "look for rollbacks" because he felt the need to "make more users follow the rollback policy."

(B) When Mythdon believed certain users potentially misused their tool, he subsequently approached them on their talk page and asserted his personal view regarding how rollback should have been used ([8]).

(C) On more than one occasion ([9], [10], [11]), Mythdon failed to familiarise himself with the context of a situation and/or questioned legitimate usage of rollback.

(D) This was driven by a mechanical interpretation of rollback policy.

(E) Mythdon's use of recent changes for this purpose is inappropriate, and counterproductive. However, Mythdon has indicated that he will not hesitate to continue engaging in this practice ([12]).

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated E. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely inappropriate. Those who abuse rollbacks are problematic and should not be protected. They should be prevented from continuing in their abuse. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Yes, this version sounds better. Would it be possible to convert this into prose rather than a list format?

a/c) 18:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

Indeed, and I'd personally prefer removing the lettering to make it a prose version. The reason I used list format was so if there were particular issues (which was predictable in a way), they'll be easy to refer to. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This diff should not be part of what is asserted in C as it is not part of the failure of familiarization. The other diffs, yes they are part of the issue raised in C. —Mythdon t/c 02:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page for further discussion on this issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very good summary of the events.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how these actions are inappropriate. If you look at JPG-GR's evidence, you'll see that I asked for an explanation to confirm why the rollbacks were made, which is a good approach in my opinion. This is not an abusive use of recent changes, although it should be used to track unproductive edits and warn the offenders about them, I still do not see anything wrong here. —Mythdon t/c 03:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrolling RC for vandalism, yes, that's useful. Patrolling RC for RC patrollers, not so much. It is counter-productive, particularly when you're only batting .250.

a/c) 03:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

Do you consider it stalking and tendentiousness? These warnings and requests for explanation are perfectly fine and compliant as far as I can see. We have policies and we have guidelines and we must follow them and only ignore them within clear, substantial and unquestionable reason. —Mythdon t/c 03:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do consider it tendentious, since you blatantly stated that was your sole purpose in going through RC. You have better things to do than hovering over people's shoulders waiting for them to mess up. You're not the Wiki Gestapo - don't act like one. If you happen to notice a mistake, fine, but don't go looking for them.

a/c) 03:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

I think it is great to look for them, provided I can correct them, and "recent changes" is a great way to do that. I think I have had a good time warning the editors of their rollbacks, and will not hesitate to do so again. —Mythdon t/c 05:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page for further discussion on this issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Mythdon's preoccupation with Ryulong

7) Despite repeated requests for Mythdon to refrain from interacting with or commenting on Ryulong during the RfC/U, Mythdon maintained: "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." When questioned as to why Mythdon should be exempt from such requests by many editors, Mythdon did not make reference to himself but instead stated his personal opinion regarding rollback and stated that Ryulong "is an editor who should be dealt with by all means". [13]

Comment by others:

Proposed; summary of that link. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asking someone to refrain from discussing someone who has directly attacked, abused authority in regards to the individual, etc, has a chilling effect on victims and only promotes abuse of authority. The above is completely inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a finding of fact; it's not restricting anyone in any way. I'm not sure I understand your comment.

a/c) 04:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

A "finding of facts" that directly contradicts the inherent spirit and dignity of the encyclopedic process. Sorry, but the above cannot be construed as a "fact" unless we wish to put forth the destruction of what makes this place work. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava Rima, I suggest you make your own page of proposals that you're happy with rather than voicing strong disagreement with almost everything here - particularly when a number of the comments aren't constructive. What you're doing seems to destroy one of the purposes of trying this new format of workshop. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand how this works. If you don't like someone disagreeing with it, then perhaps you shouldn't put it up to begin with. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeing and providing something constructive is one thing; repeatedly beating a dead horse is another - you're in the latter of these categories when it comes to your participation here; it's against the purpose of having this system. Seeing your views are so extreme and so much in conflict with those that Hersfold, Synergy, Tiptoety and myself share to at least some extent, it's reasonable to suggest you disengage from this page, create your own proposals on your own page, and wait for input on whether arbitrators, parties and others find yours credible. You stated your views, and we were already aware of them from your evidence - I wonder how anyone could appreciate you repeatedly stating your view in the way you have here, because I fail to see anything positive about it. That said, if Hersfold, Synergy or Tiptoety do, they're welcome to make a note of it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how, on the second reply, you bring out the "dead horse" analogy, something reserved for the end of a discussion and not the beginning. That only verifies that you have no actual response. Thank you for doing just that. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree with Ncmvocalist, and in fact couldn't have worded his response to you better. This is what we've proposed and are agreeing on; if you don't like it, you're welcome and encouraged to post your own suggestions elsewhere. Have a nice day.

a/c) 17:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

Also, since you don't seem to be open to discussion on this issue, Ottava, this would seem to be the end of the discussion rather than the beginning as you suggest.

a/c) 17:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

I would note that the ArbCom members are smart enough to recognize the utter hypocricy in your claim that I am not open to discussion while you are telling me to go elsewhere after making a critique of the above. The only one not open to discussion is yourself and Ncm, which only verifies the corrupt nature of the original proposal. Such disregard for consensus and discussion in general is unhealthy and the very problem that brought about this ArbCom case and so many RfCs on Ryulong. I would hope that you would learn from his failings and stop acting in the same awful manner that he acted in. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

10) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Ryulong desysopped

1) Ryulong is desysopped. Ryulong may request return of administrator access either through a RFA or by request to the Committee.

Comment by others:

Proposed. While I am still debating this, I am putting this out here for discussion. Tiptoety ^talk20:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Haven't ruled this out (yet); will be more decisive after some more Fofs. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)~~ ~~Don't believe this is necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)~~ Noted, in light of new evidence. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't know. the steadfast refusal to accept advice and assistance from others makes me wonder if admin'ing is the wrong help for him to provide to the project. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of various administrative privileges and violation of policies and guidelines since the beginning of his time as an admin suggest that this is the only way to protect the community and prevent future damage. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Strongly feel that this would be excessive. I'd prefer a sort of mentorship thing like is proposed below to help him make more improvements to address the concerns brought up here and in the RfC. As his and my evidence show, Ryulong is making an effort. In your statements above, you've noted that Ryulong has done good work here and I have no doubt he will continue to do so if only given the chance.

a/c) 21:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

Undecided. Synergy 15:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite obvious opposition to this particular remedy.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is getting to be necessary. —Mythdon t/c 21:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Ryulong desysopped

1a) For showing consistently poor judgment in performing administrative actions, Ryulong is desysopped. Ryulong may request return of administrator access either through a RFA or by request to the Committee.

Comment by others:

Proposed. Slightly different wording. Tiptoety ^talk 21:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the evidence is anywhere near strong enough to support the wording of this remedy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong has violated the trust of the community since the very beginning. The ArbCom should not be given the right to reinstate him at a later date. Only the community should have the right to decide if they trust him enough to reinstate him. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

While I haven't read the first RfC, ~~I do wonder if this would be the right procedure~~. While he tries to improve, he does not show enough improvement. He's still not following the

rollback guideline enough, if you read my evidence in the evidence subpage, you'll see exactly what I mean. —Mythdon t/c 21:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

Quite obvious opposition to this particular remedy.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this very much. Similar proposals exist in my Workshop page. —Mythdon t/c 21:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Ryulong strongly urged

2) Ryulong is strongly urged:

(A) To consult with other members of the community or administrators before taking potently controversial administrative actions;

(B) To adhere more closely to blocking policies and the considerations outlined in this decision before blocking users;

(C) To enhance his level of communication with editors affected by his administrator actions;

(D) To not use his administrative tools in situations which he is

involved

in; and

(E) To only use administrative rollback as outlined in this decision.

Comment by others:

Proposed, though I would prefer desysopping. Tiptoety^talk 20:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Haven't ruled this out (yet); will be more decisive after some more Fofs. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)~~ Noted; second choice to alternative below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple RfCs have strongly urged him, along with many users, to act appropriately and he has failed to do so. No "urging" will be able to attain the necessary protection of the community. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

This seems reasonable to me.

a/c) 21:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

I can live with this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong strongly urged

2.1) Ryulong is strongly urged:

(A) To consult with other members of the community or administrators before taking potently controversial administrative actions;

(B) To adhere more closely to blocking policies and the considerations outlined in this decision before blocking users;

(C) To enhance his level of communication with editors affected by his administrator actions;

(D) To not use his administrative tools in situations which he is

involved

in; and

(E) To only use administrative rollback as outlined in this decision.

(F) To [continue to] avoid any unnecessary interaction with Mythdon.

Comment by others:

Proposed as alternative to account for proposal 6, or as an alternative to proposal 7. If Ryulong is desysopped, then obviously only E and F of this proposal should be considered. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Fixing numbering for clarity.

a/c) 18:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

Proposed. This would go along with proposal 2, "Ryulong strongly urged," above. If it doesn't get accepted, this becomes fairly moot.

Ryulong mentored

3) To facilitate improvement in the areas addressed in this case and the RFC, Ryulong shall be assigned two mentors by the Arbitration Committee, both of whom shall be administrators who have held the sysop flag for a period of at least one year and are not subject to any sanctions by the community or ArbCom. These mentors shall be responsible for overseeing Ryulong's administrative actions and interactions with other users, and shall be the first point of contact when Ryulong has a concern. These mentors shall report on a monthly basis to the Arbitation Committee on Ryulong's behavior. Should the mentors or an Arbitrator feel at any time that Ryulong's conduct is again becoming problematic, they may make a motion to ArbCom that he be formally desysopped. This mentorship shall remain in place for a period of one year, which may be extended, shortened, or removed by motion of the Arbitration Committee based on the mentor's reports.

Comment by parties:

a/c) 22:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

I do have some issues with this. I would not mind, at this point, conferring controversial actions with other administrators. I've been doing this already, even prior to the 2nd RFC. This could use some rewording and retooling for it to be effective and not condescending, as Synergy points out.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Not sure how well this will work, Ryulong has had ~3 years to improve his behavior since his first RfC and has shown a inability to do so. Not sure a mentor will change much. Also, this places a fair amount of oversight in a ArbCom that is already run very thin, and does not have time to babysit administrators. Tiptoety^talk 22:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is unlikely to be helpful. Babysitting is for those who are new to learn the ropes. Those who know what the ropes are for and don't use them properly get sanctions. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not after three years. How would you feel if, after a few years you were told you have to be mentored? Synergy 01:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't like it, but I'd appreciate being given the chance to improve upon my actions. It's a little difficult to show improvement using the admin tools when you don't have them. Naturally, if Ryulong isn't amenable to this, it shouldn't be considered.

a/c) 03:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

I think the idea here though is, that Ryulong has already shown over the past few years that he is incapable of reforming. Tiptoety ^talk 03:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent some evidence to ArbCom detailing some of my involvement with Ryulong prior to the opening of this case, where he was making an effort to seek some advice on actions he was taking. I would be willing to continue this role should Ryulong be open to it and this proposal (or an amended version of it) be adopted into the final decision.

a/c) 03:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

Wont work, unless also desysopped and the mentors enforce the policies and guidelines through blocks in a strong manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Ryulong to reconfirm

4)

RfA

.

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I don't want to see another admin removed by the arbitration committee this year. While its risky, I'd prefer this proposal over all of the proposed decisions thus far. Synergy 01:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Seems fair enough~~. —Mythdon t/c 02:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with this simply because I have a very strong feeling (bordering on premonition) that this will just turn into a lynch mob and general dramafest. Ryulong is a controversial administrator (obviously, since we're here) and like most admins has pissed off a good number of people during the course of his duties. Reconfirmation RfAs just open admins up to widespread abuse from people who don't like that they were blocked or whatever. If he's going to be desysopped, ArbCom should be the one to do it. If we decide ArbCom should not be desysopping Ryulong, then it's irresponsible on our part to pass the buck off elsewhere. This is what ArbCom is here to do; review alleged cases of admin abuse and take care of it appropriately.

a/c) 02:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

Fair enough. Synergy 03:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too say fair enough. —Mythdon t/c 03:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

While I agree that ArbCom has been doing lots of desyoppings, I have to say it is a long time coming. Personally, I have to agree with Hersfold. An RfA is part of a ArbCom remedy = drama. That said, should Ryulong be desyopped, he could always opt to go through a second RfA anyways. I am not sure that forcing him to do one is the best choice. Tiptoety ^talk 03:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I wanted to get a feel for this. See what opinions sprung from it, if only to move this in a direction forward. So lets not take a step backwards then. We can cancel or strike it. Synergy 03:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with many of the points raised by Hersfold and Tiptoety. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A desysopping by ArbCom would be an effective measure to reinforce the position of ArbCom as a legitimate and effective way of ending corruption within the admin corps, a key concern at the last ArbCom election. To have Ryulong go through a reconfirmation without an explicit desysopping is to undermine the authority of the ArbCom, to allow Ryulong to make claims that he did nothing wrong, and would be an acceptance of his constant history of abuse. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I believe there was a long-ago case where a similar remedy was put forth by the Arbitration Committee, and the bureaucrats declined to participate. I am hoping that someone familiar with Arbcom history will be able to come up with the case name. Risker (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stevertigo. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mythdon admonished

5) Mythdon is reminded that in general Wikipedia policies and guidelines are flexible, and should be applied with common sense as fits the circumstances of a given situation. Over-enforcing policies and policing users for adherence to policies can create a chilling effect on the sense of community Wikipedia depends on to operate. Mythdon is strongly encouraged to seek consensus from other editors regarding the proper application of policy in a certain situation before engaging in large-scale changes or deletion nominations.

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This follows from Findings of Fact #5 and #6 as proposed above.

a/c) 03:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

I understand that. However, allowing articles to publish

there are things Wikipedia is not which most of us clearly know consistently, etc. —Mythdon t/c 06:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

You're missing the point. The evidence presented shows that while you are correct, articles need to be verifiable, you're taking the case way too far with certain articles. Episodes, for example, are difficult to provide what we would otherwise consider "reliable sources" for, although there is often a wealth of sources available. You've continued to bang on about this repeatedly in many cases, to the point it has become disruptive, and have done so with other aspects of policy as well. I don't know what you're going on about harassment for, as I don't see how that is relevant here.

a/c) 18:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

About the harassment thing, I was just using it to get my point across better to you. Only one time do I find that I got disruptive with the strict interpretations and enforcements. On one article, I wiped out most of the content of a page, so much that I was in fact accused of vandalism, and then I got into a discussion on the talk page. It was probably the biggest mistake I ever made during my time on Wikipedia. Want some diffs? I have them [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. If you look at the talk page, you'll see the discussion, and if you want, the discussion is here [23]. Please tell me exactly what you think of the incident. —Mythdon t/c 02:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The title and first three words don't match. Which is it - a reminder or admonishment? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intended to be an admonishment, but it probably does need rewording.

a/c) 18:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

Yeah, not sure "admonishment" is really what the wording is getting at. Tiptoety ^talk 07:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The language directly contradicts the spirit of BRD, which is a core belief on Wikis as a whole. Therefore, this cannot be accepted in any manner without undermining the core structure of how Wikipedia and all Wikis function. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Mythdon admonished

5.1) Mythdon is admonished to be more civil, professional and respectful towards his fellow contributors. Mythdon is also admonished to cease attempts to provoke other contributors. Over-enforcing policies and policing users for adherence to policies can create a chilling effect on the sense of community Wikipedia depends on to operate.

Comment by others:

Proposed as alternative. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I've already improved my civility last month just before my 2nd RFA, so that won't work. I've been much more civil on Wikipedia lately, following suggestions in my 1st RFA. An admonishment of such sort would be redundant. —Mythdon t/c 12:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've made comments in bad taste even at the RfC talk page following Ryulong's suggestion of retirement; I don't see much redundancy. To be more clear, copyedited slightly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was before I considered becoming more civil. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and since that is the case, I will do everything in my power to protect it. —Mythdon t/c 14:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before you considered being more civil? I'm sorry, that should be something you do all the time, not something you have to consciously plan on doing.

a/c) 18:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

I do do it all the time now. I try to keep my comments out of bad taste and try to watch how I say things more. However, the meaning of my comments remain precisely the same, and the intent of them is the same just as before. Basically a sugarcoat. I remember one time when I accused another editor of incivility back in last October, reported it to WQA following sufficient warnings, an admin blocked the editor indefinitely for "persistent incivility and personal attacks". That same editor then made statements based on legal things saying things in his/her unblock requests like "you are legally required to provide accommodation" and "I have Asperger's Syndrome", in which another admin declined the request basing that fact that the editor planned to take legal proceedings to the matter. Now I realize I too had civility issues ocassionally, and now realize I wasn't trying as hard as I should have. I now feel I was a bit too harsh on the editor. I can show you some evidence if you'd like some. —Mythdon t/c 01:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not founded within the facts of the case. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are three proposed findings of fact which refer to this behavior.

a/c) 04:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

Yes, and they are also wrong. The actual facts do not support the claims, nor do the claims above support what this encyclopedia is about. To accept the above and the "facts" that supposedly reinforce it is Wikianarchism simply put. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Mythdon strongly urged

6) Mythdon is strongly urged:

(A) To remember that Wikipedia policies and guidelines are flexible, and should be applied with common sense as fits the circumstances of a given situation.

(B)To seek consensus from other editors regarding the proper application of policy in a certain situation before engaging in large-scale changes or deletion nominations.

Comment by others:

Proposed (as addition - not as a replacement for the above proposal). Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Many of our policies cannot be deemed flexible. No original research, copyright violations, BLP, etc, need to be upheld even if "consensus" seems to suggest otherwise. There are legal and ethical concerns behind this, and such a statement would destroy the encyclopedic integrity of Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some are inflexible, however most aren't. Hence

a/c) 04:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

IAR is another rule. If you are using one rule to justify not using another, then you are actually using a rule. IAR is also not an excuse to act destructively, which Ryulong has surely done. Thus, your own argument and the above contradict, and also do not apply. With either, this is completely inappropriate. NPOV is not flexible. Verifiability is not flexible. Copyright is not flexible. BLP is not flexible. This is an encyclopedia, remember that because the above and your words seem to suggest otherwise. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Hersfold, the very fact that it doesn't say "some" or even specifically point out which are flexible shows that the above is 100% wrong. There is no way to say otherwise, especially when you just stated that some are inflexible. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Mythdon strongly urged

6.1) Mythdon is strongly urged:

(A) To be more civil, professional and respectful towards his fellow contributors.

(B) To cease attempts to provoke other contributors.

(C) To remember that Wikipedia policies and guidelines are flexible, and should be applied with common sense as fits the circumstances of a given situation.

(D) To remember that over-enforcing policies and policing users for adherence to policies can create a chilling effect on the sense of community Wikipedia depends on to operate.

(E) To consult with other members of the community regarding the proper application of policy in a certain situation before engaging in large-scale changes or deletion nominations.

Comment by others:

Proposed for consideration as replacement for #5.1 and #6. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See comments above about many of our core beliefs not being "flexible". An under enforcement of such policies and guidelines are what destroys Wikipedia, and the language above would destroy the integrity of the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

This seems good to me - no sense in making multiple statements if we can combine them into one.

a/c) 18:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

(A) Comment on any user's usage of rollback, excepting his own; or

Mythdon restricted

7) Mythdon shall not:

(B) Interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Ryulong, on any page in Wikipedia.

Proposed; it is a pity that this has become necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

This is not proper in my opinion. Attempting to stop me from contacting Ryulong or talking about him will not work out as me and him edit the same content. Also, I don't see anything wrong with commenting on other editors usage of rollback. I feel it is necessary to state my opinion, and the users who I asked for an explanation of their rollbacks seen nothing wrong with the questioning, but did however disagree. This remedy proposal is not necessary in my opinion as it would be non-benificial. This proposal will disrupt the ability of consensus building in the subject area I edit. —Mythdon t/c 12:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this remedy was not designed for your benefit - it was designed for the benefit of the overall project; to prevent the detriment that your preoccupations are so-causing, without damaging the wider community's ability to build consensus. You refused to voluntarily take either of these remedies despite multiple uninvolved+involved users finding the need for you to do so. Your comment shows that you fail to see the underlying problems. This is enough evidence, in my opinion, to reinforce the need for this remedy. Allowing you to continue to perpetuate very petty feuds and grievances, whether it is again with Ryulong or with someone else, is simply not acceptable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would I be able to avoid receiving messages from Ryulong following an edit to a Power Rangers article? If he sends me a message about an edit, wouldn't it be better to reply than not to reply? Whether or not an agreement would be reached? If this remedy gets accepted, it should apply to both of us. —Mythdon t/c 14:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with your last sentence; see proposal 2.1 and/or proposal 8, either of which would need to accompany this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I would agree this is seeming to be necessary, particularly the first part, I feel that restriction B is too impractical for two editors who work in the same areas. Such a "leave each other alone" thing can work, especially if set up by mutual agreement (I'm involved in one myself), but when two editors will be working closely anyway, it's just going to get in the way of things. The only way I would see this being practical is if one or the other left the Tokusatsu area entirely, which I'm guessing neither is willing to do, and a topic ban for either editor to that effect would be way out of line.

a/c) 18:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

Completely inappropriate. To restrict any discussion about Rollbacks would only allow admin like Ryulong to continue to abuse the power of their status. The proposal is only one to further the destruction of the encyclopedia, not protect it. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are you assumptions of bad faith suppose to help you make your point in this case? Mythdon (Talk) 00:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

URGENT NOTE TO ARBCOM BEFORE VOTING: This is to notify ArbCom that although I am no longer commenting on users usage of rollback for now, this is only until whether or not the voting rules that I can't do so. Should the vote rule that I can do so, I will return to doing so. This is so they know I am not trying to circumvent the decision making. —Mythdon t/c 06:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Mythdon restricted

7.1) Mythdon shall not comment on any user's usage of rollback, excepting his own.

Comment by others:

Proposed alternative per above comments. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Rollbacks are an easy way to destroy the encyclopedia and have been used abusively lately. Any claim that they are "no big deal" is the same as saying admining is "no big deal", which defies reality. We have ArbCom and such cases because it turns out that these functions -do- cause problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

While I myself have found this series of actions a bit stalking, I deny that it is disruptive. Just enforcing policy alone is not enough to mark it as disruption, given that the policy may be right. That's how I feel about it. —Mythdon t/c 22:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you believe you are enforcing is not policy but your own personal narrow view, and obviously, if it was not disruptive, I would not find this proposal as a necessary minimum. The other remedies on you spell out these issues in more detail. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I should have said guideline given this is about rollback. Just enforcing a policy or a guideline is not disruptive, in my opinion. I don't have an opinion on many of these policies. My enforcement of them is not based on my personal view, but based on what I feel the the policy is saying and meaning. Could you provide a short explanation on how you think these notifications are disruptive? —Mythdon t/c 21:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As we've said multiple times, it's not so much the enforcement, but the manner in which you are enforcing it and the strict degree to which you are interpreting the guideline. You have explicitly stated that you go through Recent Changes, not to look for vandalism, but to look for where other editors are trying to revert vandalism, so you can comment on their talk page about their use of rollback. The evidence provided has shown that many times your assertion that the rollback was inappropriate was not correct. This makes it more difficult for those editors to revert vandalism (a much more productive use of their times), because they need to respond to your concern. If you interpreted the guideline with some leeway, as guidelines should be by definition, this may not be such a problem. If I may quote policy at you (don't worry, I'll trout myself later),

a/c) 19:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

And to confim, I feel this is necessary.

a/c) 19:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

URGENT NOTE TO ARBCOM BEFORE VOTING: This is to notify ArbCom that although I am no longer commenting on users usage of rollback for now, this is only until whether or not the voting rules that I can't do so. Should the vote rule that I can do so, I will return to doing so. This is so they know I am not trying to circumvent the decision making. —Mythdon t/c 06:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Ryulong restricted

8) Ryulong shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Mythdon, on any page in Wikipedia.

Comment by others:

Proposed for consideration; I think 2.1 should be adequate though, if Ryulong agrees voluntarily. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I feel that blocking communication between the two of us will not help Wikipedia in any way. Such a remedy would only hurt us, the articles we edit, and ultimately Wikipedia. If this remedy got accepted, the subject area we edit would go through a downfall and any attempts to build consensus would be even less likely than it already is. Content disputes are perfectly legitimate. If we receive this restriction, what's going to happen when we want to discuss about something? What are we going to do when making future edits to the "tokusatsu" articles? How's the WikiProject Tokusatsu going to do? How are we going to have the ability to discuss anything? Think about it. This proposal is quite excessive in my opinion, and the articles and discussions would fall should this remedy be part of the closing decision. I feel such restrictions should only be used in cases of persistent harassment, stalking, false accusations, etc. This remedy will not help us, the articles, the discussions, or Wikipedia and it's editors. —Mythdon t/c 15:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page for further discussion on this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above; I'm finding myself agreeing with Mythdon here.

a/c) 18:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply