Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong

Statement by involved Tiptoety

I would like to start by saying that it is truly unfortunate that it has come to this, but I feel that all other methods of communication and dispute resolution has failed.

Ryulong has been a active administrator on Wikipedia, and during his time here has helped the project significantly. Unfortunately, he has failed to take constructive criticism from the community at large and has continued to use his administrative tools in a disruptive and at times abusive way. While the second request for comment was in progress, Ryulong has continued to be abrasive, and threatens to use his tools against a user whom he is involved in a dispute with (the founding reason the RfC was filed). I urge the committee to look at all the diffs provided in the second RfC to completely understand the long term patter of disruption.

I would also like to note that in opening the second RfC I hoped that Ryulong would change his behavior and gave him many opportunities, but judging by his most recent actions he has not taken them. I would also like to note that I added the ANI diff to the above list of prior attempts at dispute resolution.

Further comment / reply to Hersfold

I am going to have to disagree with you here Hersfold, there are more issues than just that one block threat that occurred during the second RfC including this block which is a first time block of one week, on a IP editor whom is editing the same subjects as Ryulong. I would also like to not some other questionable rollbacks that were preformed during the RfC, a large removal of non-vandalism content, another removal of non-vandalism content, a rollback of a IP whom made some wikimark up edits (non-vandalism), and rolling back a clearly good faith edit. He also recently threatened to block an IP whom was changing the heading colors on a article that he edits on a regular basis. Tiptoety ^talk 14:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Vassyana and Coren

First let me start by saying that the result of the RfC was to come here as the issues being addressed were not being fixed, so there is really no "evidence" of abuse since the RfC...but there is evidence of it during the RfC (or after it was filed). I would also like to note that the RfC was doomed from the start as stated that he was not willing to change his actions. In regards to your request for evidence of further issues during or after the RfC I ask you to look at the diffs provided in the section above (the reply to Hersfold). Tiptoety ^talk 19:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Are you ready for IPv6?

He is no longer open to recall, so that point is moot. If you wish to know why, you can ask him but I am not sure it is relevant. Tiptoety ^talk 04:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Jayvdb

Yes from the 16th to the 17th Ryulong engaged in a edit war (page history). Also all those diffs cited in the above section directed towards Hersfold are all after the RfC were filled. Please see that section, as I have also asked in multiple other sections. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 03:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Master&Expert

I am ambivalent towards Ryulong and his admin work. On the one hand, he is an all-around excellent maintenance worker which the site highly values. But on the other, I have found some of his comments to have a very "as an admin my judgment is naturally sound" feel to them.

Talk) 04:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Statement from Majorly

Ryulong has been an admin since early 2007. If I hadn't known this, I would have assumed he was relatively inexperienced, due to the number of abusive and other problematic actions he has done with admin rights. Lots of significant concerns were raised on his successful RFA, that passed with an unusually low percentage. Ryulong says he is trying to work on issues raised from the RFCs. This is not acceptable, when one has never really been suited for adminship. Bluntly, if he had never been an admin, and was to request now, he'd fail dismally. The problem here is that there has been a significant problem for a long, long time. Admins need to always have trust and respect from the community, and Ryulong lacks both these things, and has done for a while. His continuation as an admin is generally a net negative in my opinion. We should refrain from giving people, especially admins, chance after chance after chance to "work on issues" and to "redeem themselves". Why? Because there should never be any issues to work on or to redeem.

Statement from Rocksanddirt

Hersfolds statements really concern me. If Ryulong has been getting advice from others, and still shows a pattern of abusive use of tools, such that experienced users feel the need to do something; I think there is something for the committee to review. After the first RfC on Ryulong, he seemed to take a lot of the communities concerns to heart. At that one, there were a number of other admins, who were very dismissive of the attempt to reign in one of their own. It was only after numerous users pointed to specific problems, and requested not deadmining (though some did), but simply a change in his behavior that obstruction slowed and the concerns could be clearly presented to Ryulong. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved Are you ready for IPv6?

Okay I spotted this recently. I've not dealt with Ryulong that I can remember of myself but in his 3rd RFA which he passed from that to become administrator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ryulong he said he would be open for recall.

Here's a quote:

---

“

Optional question from Lar:

5. (one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 18:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware about voluntary recall/review, but if such a situation were to occur if I were to become an admin, I would not object to such a review. It would give me constructive criticism as to my (currently hypothetical) status as an admin and my faults as an editor, just as the various opposition votes below are calling into question now. I have heard about Rouge admins to an extent, but I have not really looked into the situation (the most I know is that "Rouge" is purposefully used instead of "Rogue", and I can discern that it must mean that the admins have gone rogue/AWOL/amok in some form). I do see that the process of Rouge admins is calling into question the faults of the user, albeit in a humorous fashion. If another admin felt I was going "Rouge", then I would take it as it was intended, constructive (yet funny) criticism. Now, I have to see what "WP:WONK" is. Ryūlóng 23:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

”

---

Basically, arbitrations are very time consuming and lengthy. It often has people getting all angry at each other and results in some people getting punished, sanctioned, etc. The administrators open to recall is a there to make things more efficient. Why not just use that to handle things instead? I think it would save a lot of time. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops I typed the URL wrong. I went to the first RFA and not the third. The third was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ryulong_3 and the quote I was looking for was

---

“

Optional question from Jaranda

7. If you become an admin will you place yourself in Category:Administrators open to recall.

A: I would be willing to add myself to that category should this request be fulfilled.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

”

---

Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I want to point out a few things before this is opened/rejected/whatever; comprising of a note, an unusual comment/critique, and another comment.

The RfC was closed by Tiptoety, and I added it to the archives with the understanding that it may be reopened only immediately following a decline of this request - should arbitrators deem it necessary opening the case, then there's no justification to turn back.

Beyond this, there's really only one other thing I believe I've commented on with respect to this - that Mythdon should voluntarily agree to stop interacting with or commenting on Ryulong. There was general agreement with this view by others, as suggested on the RfC's talk page. All that said, courtesy of what I call "modern technology" with respect to email access, when certain users, even if they are arbitrators, join forces with grudge-holders in allowing the needless escalation of matters (as opposed to dissolving them by joining the wider community chorus that says '...back off; find a more productive hobby that isn't so....'), I suppose it'd be too much to expect a decent understanding or feeling of care with respect to this sensitive issue. The justification for dissolving the issue and letting other issues arise without interference, far outweighs the justification for refusing to do so (which by contrast, has the effect of a nasty toxic chemical reaction of sorts - it'd be sad to see it blow up in anyones face). But I digress, and note the uneasy distinction (if any) between "a very hypothetical scenario" and "reality".

With the exception of this issue concerning interacting/commenting, the only other thing worth pointing out is two broad categories which should make 'what the decision ought to be' quite clear...but then again, I myself don't have a view on this dispute. :) Sometimes an RfC needs to move straight to arbitration, even where opened for a short time. But it is sometimes important to keep an RfC open, or to wait after an RfC is closed - the subject may make genuine (and I really do mean genuine) attempts to improve, yet may at any or all times, still put up fronts as if he/she will do little to nothing. That's all I have to say. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CUTKD (uninvolved)

This Request for Arbitration was long overdue. Whilst I respect much of the good work Ryulong has performed, his attitude for too long has been nothing short of a disgrace. The sheer arrogance and rudeness he has displayed in some of his comments, and his total contempt for other users "beneath" him lead me to feel that nothing short of a total revocation of his full administrator rights will be sufficient. Hopefully, such sanctions might enforce a more humbling attitude, and should such action prove to be effective, I would be all for a reinstatement once noticeable changes are observed. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 09:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Mythdon

I am requesting clarification for the wording of the terms of my soon-to-be mentorship.

In term B of "Mythdon restricted and placed under mentorship", it states "Mythdon should consult and take guidance from the mentor when issues arise concerning their editing or behavior". I am confused as to who this is referring to. The confusion is is that the word "their" refers to multiple other people, but it's clear that in the other restriction(s), the word discusses me as evidenced by their wording. However, I am not certain as to what the word means in this term (term B). Here's the question: Does "their" in term B refer to issues regarding my editing/behavior or other editors editing/behavior?

I am also asking for clarification on the wording of term C. It states "During mentorship, Mythdon is restricted from making edits such as unnecessary questions and abusive warnings to users' talk pages if not approved by their mentor" - In regards to "abusive warnings", does this go for all warnings, or does it simply go for warnings (i.e. my past warnings to admins/rollbackers about their use of rollback) that were judged to be abusive? The word "abusive" raises questions, and did raise a similar questions here, but that doesn't clarify my question. As an unrelated note, while my next statement here would not deal with something that needs any clarification, if anyone ever asks, as a result of arbitrator FayssalF's statement "After all, you'll [Mythdon] be consulting with him before making any edit to anyone's talk page", besides my own talk page, I have made absolutely zero edits to user talk namespace since the closure of the case.

While you may find this request for clarification a bit ridiculous, please seriously consider clarifying.

If any other editor has additional questions regarding this or any other remedy, please do so. It may very well clarify something that I thought was some other way.

No, I have not found or attempted to find a mentor yet, in case an arbitrator asks me. If I do get assigned a mentor (which will most certainly likely happen), and if I edit during the mentorship, these are things I need to know before any interpretations are made. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note by Mythdon

I would like to remind Risker and Newyorkbrad that before acting as arbitrators in this request, that they recused themselves from the relevant case voluntarily. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions by Mythdon

In term D, it states:

Mythdon shall not comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about Ryulong on any page in Wikipedia until a mentor is appointed and may only comment after the appointment with his mentor's prior approval.

While this term only covers comments about the user, I am unsure as to whether comments to the user apply as well. Does this also apply to interactions? I believe so. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After the mentors appointment, in regards to "...may only comment after the appointment with his mentor's prior approval.", would this "approval" approve of all future comments to/about Ryulong without further approvals or would I have to gain approval for every single comment? My suspicions are leaning towards "...approval for every single comment". —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-statement by Stifle

Regarding the first point, I hate to say it, but I told you so. :)

As you were.

talk) 10:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Recused - Tiptoety ^talk 06:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recused - MBisanz ^talk 08:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recused -
a/c) 22:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Arbitrator views and discussion

Regarding clause (b), "their" refers to your (Mythdon's) editing; see singular they.
Regarding clause (c), if you (Mythdon) are uncertain whether an intended warning is abusive, you are to consult your mentor. The onus to avoid borderline behavior is on you at this point. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding clause (d): yes, you are restricted in terms of making any comment to Ryulong as well as making any comment about Ryulong. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 01:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't planning on looking at this, let alone commenting on it, but Mythdon is correct that I had recused in the original case, so I will formally recuse from this as well. Risker (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recused. (Don't worry, I wouldn't have forgotten.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill succinctly makes the point. --Vassyana (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Kirill's comments. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also concur with Kirill. Roger Davies ^talk 16:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Kirill as well. Wizardman 19:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill phrases it well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the last question raised by Mythodon, that Kirill has not answered, the mentor will be phrasing the approval in a manner that they see fit. They may make broad or narrow approvals, or they may require that you seek permission for every single comment. The requirement of this remedy is that there is prior approval of the edits you make. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Ryulong (2)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Mythdon

I have additional questions regarding my mentorship ruling.

In regards to term A, it says:

Mythdon is urged to find a mentor within a month of the closure of this case, and is free to get a mentor of his/her choice. Mythdon is directed to inform the Committee once the mentor is selected. In case no mentor is found within 1 month, Mythdon will be assigned a mentor by ArbCom;

In the recently closed Mattisse case, there is ruling of mentorship there as well stating that Matissee shall be assigned mentors by the committee within 15 days of that decision. But, also, unlike mine, there is a ruling here that directs Mattisse not to edit Wikipedia if the "plan" is not accomplished within the 15 day period without Committee permission. Because of that, I have this question; Since my month long time limit to find a mentor is up (it's been up since approximately June 24), am I prohibited from editing Wikipedia at all until the appointment or am I just prohibited from making edits that require the mentor approval?

In regards to term B, it says:

Mythdon should consult and take guidance from the mentor when issues arise concerning their editing or behavior. Inability to work constructively with a mentor may be a sign that a user has continued difficulty in collaborative editing and that stronger sanctions are required; successful editing during the mentorship may demonstrate that the opposite is true;

I am having a hard time understanding the beginning sentence of that term "Mythdon should consult and take guidance from the mentor when issues arise concerning their editing or behavior". I do not know what is being meant by "consult". Does it mean "consult your mentor when you're unsure of whether an edit is legitimate?" - My suspicion is "yes".

Since I'm not 100% sure as of this moment, I need further clarification on this case ruling. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Vassyana

In response to: "Why have you not acquired a mentor? Have you had difficulty finding someone to agree? Were you unsure of where to look or how to approach the matter?" - To answer these first three questions, I'll respond to those all in the same answer; I intentionally have not found a mentor yet. The first reason is because I don't feel like doing so, and the other is because I'm not interested in having a mentor.

In response to: "...what areas do you feel you need the most guidance in?" - I don't feel like I need any guidance in any area. I feel that I've worked functional enough in the areas I've worked in before the remedy was put in place. I don't think I need any guidance from a mentor.

In response to: "What sort of advice would be most helpful for you?" - I don't think I need any advice. I think that I know how, what, where, and when to do something without advice from a mentor. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question(s) from Mythdon

In regards to term D "Mythdon shall not comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about Ryulong on any page in Wikipedia until a mentor is appointed and may only comment after the appointment with his mentor's prior approval.", am I allowed to revert any post Ryulong makes on my talk page? Since the case, I have either reverted or ignored any post he's made on my talk page, but I think it's about time this gets clarified.

During the mentorship, can the committee pass a motion to place a site ban on me for a period of time through a simple majority vote if the committee has any reason to believe it is the only approach? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Ryulong

The answers to your question is here. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/questions regarding motions

In response to the motion.

In response to; "This includes, but is not limited to, incivility, edit warring and failing to appropriately pursue dispute resolution." - Could an arbitrator please clarify why "incivility" is part of this probation? I don't engage in incivility.

In response to; "Any uninvolved administrator may utilize discretionary sanctions, including topic bans and blocks, to enforce this probation." - I'm not really planning on editing the pages during the probation. After all, since before the mentorship remedy finished voting, I have been making plans not to edit Wikipedia during the one year period. If this probation motion doesn't pass, and if a mentor is appointed, I will consider not editing for the period. I do not feel that I should edit if such a situation were to occur. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In second response to; "This includes, but is not limited to, incivility, edit warring and failing to appropriately pursue dispute resolution." - And what else? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would to ask what the committee will do with term (C); "During mentorship, Mythdon is restricted from making edits such as unnecessary questions and abusive warnings to users' talk pages if not approved by their mentor. The mentor will be asked to assist them in understanding community practice to a sufficient level that continued sanctions will not be necessary." - What will happen to this with the motion? Will I still be prohibited from making these edits? What will happen? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would count as "abusive warnings to users' talk pages"? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One warning should be enough. More than that would be counted as abusive. The rest should be dealt with by admins. I hope this helps. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, I may still post rollback warnings, but only one per user? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify what the motion means by "better communication skills"? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything related to this issue has been discussed in depth at the Arbitration case in question. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where? How? By who? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should be very familiar with the decision of the case which involved you --> Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Mythdon strongly urged. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess (B) would be replaced with your motion should it pass. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. What would be replaced with the motion is "Mythdon restricted and placed under mentorship" -a remedy which doesn't mention communication at all. I am also noting here that you are turning a blind eye to A) "To take his specific concerns about the verifiability of the articles to a wider venue such as Wikipedia:Village Pump, other sister WikiProjects or the Verifiability policy talk page itself and consult his views with others. He is then advised to report the views of others to WikiProject Tokusatsu for discussions". Here you are again into it without making any effort whatsoever to take your issue to the broader community. Please consider this a formal warning that any further persistence in your ideas and stances (ignoring discussing them with the wider community) which were dealt with by the arbitration case will lead to harsher measures. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know the mentorship will be terminated with this. The discussion you link [has changed since then]. Even if the discussion were to end? Would dispute resolution still be necessary, or just move on? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look Mythdon. We are here to discuss and clarify your mentorship. The rest of the decision doesn't change. What has to change is your approach and I don't believe that is negotiable. Your approach, documented by the arbitration case and the link we are discussing here, has been wrong. Change your habits and move on. What you've just done is forget about the Tomkasu articles and targetted other sets of articles. The habits are the same; nothing changed at all. We are not playing so don't tell me that the discussion will be ended. Forget about your past problems. Failing to do that would lead to harsher measures. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that the discussion ended. All I said was that a few comments were made to the discussion since then, and asked that if the discussion were to end, would dispute resolution still be necessary? It's a simple question. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion itself is part of the dispute resolution process. If the discussion at your user talk page were to end and still believe the dispute is still not resolved then you should pursue mediation. Again, and according to the said discussion, you seem to be taking a firm and not so flexible approach in total denial of the arbitration case remedy (see point A above). All what I am seeing there is you being back at your old habits and I don't believe mediation would help out if you don't forget about those habits which were addressed at the arbitration case. I hope this is clear. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First let me start by saying something a bit unrelated. Back in May 2009, I started this discussion at the Village Pump as I felt it would do what the ruling wanted me to do, and people voiced their views in the Village Pump. However, it wasn't until a month later that I notified WikiProject Tokusatsu of the discussion, with the discussion already archived by the time of the notification. In the Village Pump discussion, I make no reference to the case remedies, but I do bring up the remedy in the notification. That's all I'm going to say again for the moment. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Ryulong's "Addendum #2"

In response to this addendum.

First let me respond to: "I asked him in the past if he even watched the shows, and he replied that he did not" - Only twice have I made any reference to whether or not I've watched the shows. Here's the first example when I say "Well, I haven't seen the show either" as part of the statement in that diff. "The show" refers to

Power Rangers: Mystic Force to make a judgment of a merge proposal and I told him that I did

.

More responses may come soon. Thanks. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to "Seeing as he is not bringing his issues to the attention of WP:TOKU, banning him from editing these pages will be a much more effective way to curb his behavior" - The reason I haven't done this lately is due to mentorship term (D);

WT:TOKU and its archives of 2008, you'll see many comments of Ryulong replying to more than 95% of my comments on talk pages. Please take the May 24, 2009-onward comments to me more seriously. Also, take a look at Talk:Power Rangers, where Ryulong responds to a post I make after May 24, 2009 (see here). —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Statement by Ryulong

I've only had a few things to say to Mythdon since the close of the case on his user talk. The first one was removed without comment, the second and third were removed referring to the arbitration proceedings. I know that he's restricted from commenting about me but I really doubt he's restricted from communicating with me entirely. There is no way he and I can constructively contribute in the same topic area if he continues to ignore my statements after I have to clean up after him being overly strict with content policies, simply being entirely unknowledgable in the topic area, or treating aspects of the project more bureaucratically than they should be.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

I would like the arbitration committee to be aware of this discussion on Mythdon's user talk with three other users concerning his strict application and reading of various policies. It seems that he has moved onto other topic areas with his requests for every sentence to be referenced and whatever cannot be referenced (sans common sense or other pages) should be deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum #2

In the past several hours after seeing this edit, I've seen Mythdon, as usual, removing words, statements, or entire paragraphs of content on Power Rangers and other related pages without bringing anything up for discussion. As I cannot (apparently) leave him any sort of message concerning issues I have with his editing practices, I've been advised to append my statement here. Diffs are included below (in no particular order).

Everything in these are supported by the fictional media themselves. I asked him in the past if he even watched the shows, and he replied that he did not. I cannot understand why he continues to edit in this topic area if he does not even bother to follow the media in any form. He cannot contribute constructively in this topic area (anything under the umbrella of

WP:TOKU

), and frankly a topic ban would be much more worthwhile (in my opinion) rather than sticking him under various new restrictions that he will take the verbatim reading, as has shown in his knowledge of various Wikipedia policies. I understand the pages are not perfect, but there's no way that Mythdon has ever improved them.

Long before the arbitration case was filed, I've wanted to get Mythdon banned from the topic area, but I could never initiate the ban (or discussion) because of my deep involvement in dealing with Mythdon. Seeing as he is not bringing his issues to the attention of

WP:TOKU, banning him from editing these pages will be a much more effective way to curb his behavior.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Addendum #3

Really? I want a one sentence answer from him and he won't do anything because of how he's interpreting the restrictions placed on him.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I won't get an answer. Even when I didn't even put the question on the page, he undid my null edit. This is getting fucking ridiculous.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry, now it is fucking ridiculous.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Recused from the underlying case (albeit not for reasons relating to Mythdon), so I'll leave it to someone else to answer Mythdon's questions. But if I may make a suggestion, would a non-recused arbitrator volunteer to communicate directly with Mythdon to address these issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In lieu of a motion or indication to the contrary, I would expect you to be free to edit for the time being. However, I would recommend staying as far away from controversy as possible and walking away if you find yourself in a conflict. That said, I have a couple of questions. Why have you not acquired a mentor? Have you had difficulty finding someone to agree? Were you unsure of where to look or how to approach the matter? On another aspect, what areas do you feel you need the most guidance in? What sort of advice would be most helpful for you? Answering these questions will help us move forward from this point and arrange a mentoring relationship for you. --Vassyana (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regret in response to the above, in the spirit of Fayssal's comments below, I am proposing a motion to replace the mentorship arrangement. It is clear that Mythdon will not work collaboratively with a mentor. --Vassyana (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recused also from the underlying case, but I will ask the clerks to (a) link to the correct case in the title please, and (b) ensure that Ryulong is notified of this request. In view of this interaction, some further discussion may be appropriate here. Risker (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Following the answer(s) above by Mythdon to Vassyana's questions, I'll be asking my colleague arbitrators to pass a new motion in which Mythdon will be assigned a mentor by ArbCom. The answer(s) are/is a sign that Mythdon is not here to work collaboratively according to Wikipedia rules, guidelines and ArbCom's rulings. It appears that Mythdon has learned little from the ArbCom case. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motion 1

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Mythdon restricted and placed under mentorship is vacated and replaced with the following:

Mythdon is placed under conduct probabtion

Mythdon is placed under conduct probation for one year, in relation to WikiProject Tokusatsu and Ryulong, broadly construed. This includes, but is not limited to, incivility, edit warring and failing to appropriately pursue dispute resolution.

Conduct probation enforcement

Any uninvolved administrator may utilize discretionary sanctions, including topic bans and blocks, to enforce this probation. Acting administrators are encouraged to apply sanctions tailored to the circumstances and context. For the purposes of enforcing this measure, any administrator approached directly by Ryulong for enforcement should not act directly. In such a situation, raise both Ryulong's and Mythdon's conduct in normal venues for review.

Support

Proposed. --Vassyana (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any actions taken pursuant to this motion must still be logged on the case pages to allow later review. Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Roger Davies ^talk 02:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Alternative motion below. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recused

Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

As noted in a portion quoted by Mythdon, a demonstrated inability to work with a mentor may result in other sanctions. Mythdon's response to my questions illustrates that he is unwilling to accept the guidance and advice of a mentor. Rather than impose a broad topic ban that would severely impede his ability to contribute to the project, I propose this measure. It is explicitly intended to cover a broad range of behavior within the specific areas of dispute. It authorizes and encourages administrators to use their discretion to address the specific situation and context. The closing portion regarding Ryulong is a modification of the "any uninvolved admin" clause, based on the context of the arbitration case. This should permit Mythdon to continue contributing, while providing the project administrators with the tools to resolve any issues quickly and appropriately. --Vassyana (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motion 2

Motion enacted - Tiptoety ^talk 19:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Mythdon restricted and placed under mentorship is vacated and replaced with the following:

Mythdon is placed under conduct probabtion

Mythdon is placed under conduct probation for one year, in relation to WikiProject Tokusatsu and Ryulong, broadly construed. This includes, but is not limited to, edit warring and failing to appropriately pursue dispute resolution and to show better communication skills. Mythdon will still be restricted from making edits such as unnecessary questions and abusive warnings to users' talk pages.

Conduct probation enforcement

Any uninvolved administrator may utilize discretionary sanctions, including topic bans and blocks, to enforce this probation. Acting administrators are encouraged to apply sanctions tailored to the circumstances and context. For the purposes of enforcing this measure, any administrator approached directly by Ryulong for enforcement should not act directly. In such a situation, raise both Ryulong's and Mythdon's conduct in normal venues for review.

Support

FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Roger Davies ^talk 02:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since this level of detail is needed, first choice. --Vassyana (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Recused

Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

This alternative motion addresses Mythdon's response and questions concerning the above motion. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong (3)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JPG-GR (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Statement by Mythdon

I am asking for clarification regarding my conduct probation and other restrictions, if they apply to what I am asking.

I am currently in a dispute with Ryulong and JPG-GR (listed above) about whether I should put another Power Rangers article for deletion for verification reasons. Both have stated that they want me topic-banned should I put another article up for deletion based on my decision. I have stated that I will put another page up for deletion if I don't find reliable sources. If you want the link to the discussion, it is here (note that since it is a permanent link, the discussion may change).

I am asking the Arbitration Committee to clarify whether my conduct probation or other restrictions hold any jurisdiction over my placing of WikiProject Tokusatsu articles up for deletion. Before I again put a page up for deletion, this needs clarification. I wish for a fast response, though I won't force one. Thank you. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment

Just to make the committee aware, I've taken the discussion to ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic ban threats at WT:TOKU. And here is the non-permanent link to the discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu#Search soon to begin. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Xeno

If we took any distance from eachother, that would only get in the way of us working on Power Rangers and tokusatsu articles. We both work on the same articles, and it would not be a good thing if we had to distance ourselves. It would only make things worse, not better, if distance were to happen. Such a distance is a turn for the worse and not a turn for the better, period. Please look at our contributions for evidence that we edit the same articles. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Ryulong

Let me clarify. This is in absolutely no way of an attempt to find a venue to wikilawyer at all. All I did was ask some random questions regarding a proposal of which I do not wish to get myself involved with. Hopefully that settles it. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to FayssalF

So, in other words, am I forbidden from putting these pages up for deletion? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly instructed to produce a guideline within the scope of the Tokusatsu WikiProject instead of filing articles to AfD. For the sake of clarity, I am producing here the remedy again:

Participants at the WikiProject Tokusatsu
7) All participants are advised to work on producing a genuine guideline for the articles falling under the scope of the WikiProject Tokusatsu. They are urged to work in collaboration with Mythdon while seeking outside advice and help.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC) -- source

In other words, failing to work under the direction of the above remedy while persisting in putting pages up for deletion would be understood as disruption and a complete disregard of the remedy —which would warrant you a block. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, from what you're saying, until me and WikiProject Tokusatsu produce a guideline, I am indeed forbidden from making further AfDs falling under it, correct? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motion discussion

"Mythdon is prohibited from making any comment on reliable sources or verifiability unless comments are made at the WP:RS, WP:V or WP:TOKU talk pages;" - Could you please clarify this? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You got no more than 3 pages where you can discuss how to improve Wikipedia in terms of the cited guideline and policy. Please note that you are not allowed to discuss them in AfD pages as my colleague arbitrator Carcharoth may have probably implied. He is free to change his vote if he voted based on my non-explicit term or if he believes differently. Discussing these policies and guidelines at AfD would be contradictory to the spirit of the motion and to what is meant to achieve; you produce collaboratively something positive (which is a guideline in this case) before being allowed to use the AfD. I'll make this explicit in the motion. Now, this may not seem very relevant but it still an important thing to note... all policies and guidelines have been established collaboratively by hundreds of editors with only a tiny few trying to impose their views unsuccessfully.-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, with that statement, I will be prohibited from making edits like ([10][11][12]) these following the motion. Is that correct? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer has been yes since the closure of the ArbCom case and remains a yes until ArbCom sees a produced guideline which specifies when and how edits like that would be possible. Now, could be the last time answering this question please? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I didn't honestly think it was a "yes" since the closure of the case. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, does this motion have anything to do with the conduct probation or are these restrictions that are unrelated? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in the motion is related to the conduct probation; you have failed the first test. We are not complicating matters... everything is related to the original case and its remedies. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The AfD restriction is indefinite pending the production of a guideline. Mythdon should respect the terms of the guideline once it is produced;" - I know I'm the only editor explicitly mentioned, but does this apply to the other participants pending the production, or just me? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answering this would be moot as you are just saying below that you are quitting the WikiProject.

A hint for what is worth: No other editor has threatened to mass AfD articles and pursue any kind of a scheduled campaign. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stated that I will probably quit. I am not 100% sure yet. It's just a plan. It's not in effect yet. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Therefore and as a preventive measure, restrictions apply to all WikiProjects" - Does this change the whole conduct probation to apply to every single Wikipedia article? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plans

I have made plans to quit WikiProject Tokusatsu due to too much drama. What does the Arbitration Committee think? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is your decision. However, make sure that similar behavior in any other WikiProject would be dealt with similarly. I also have to make sure this is explicit. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not 100% sure yet though. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not resigning. So, please strike out or reword "in the light of Mythdon's resignation from the WikiProject". —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, instead of un-striking my user name, I have removed my name from the list. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are not playing here! This is ArbCom. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC plans

~~For the first time ever, I'm actually thinking about filing an RfC on myself, though I don't know how to do so for self-RfC's.~~ —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My conclusions are that I will not based on recent thinking. I might start an editor review. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD list

Here is a list of Power Rangers AfD's I started in 2008 and 2009, and here are the results:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Rangers episodes (Result; keep)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other Rangers and Ranger-like allies (Result; keep)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers planets (Result; delete)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Rangers (Result; delete)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Rangers foot soldiers (Result; delete)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninja Quest (Result; redirect)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers monsters (2nd nomination) (Result; delete)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marah and Kapri (Result; delete)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other Rangers and Ranger-like allies (2nd nomination) (Result; keep)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers cast members (Result; keep/merge)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Power Rangers characters (Result; keep)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost and Found in Translation (Result; redirect)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spells in Power Rangers: Mystic Force (Result; delete)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Chamber (Result; keep)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sky Tate (Result; delete)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Morphers in Power Rangers (Result; delete)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green with Evil (Result; delete)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Mondo (Result; keep)

Most of the AfD's result in the articles getting deleted, but also many were kept. What do you think? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This list has been noted while drafting the motion. It bears no big significance since the problem is behavioral. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without regard to the results? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom has nothing to do with content. We surely work for the benefit of the encyclopedia but I must be frank with you here. These set of articles are not BLP, science, politics or religious, etc articles. So probably behavior is much more important here as an aspect. You can easily present other articles to AfD once your behavior gets better after working hard on a guideline. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided not to produce a guideline. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing changes then. All restrictions remain in place indefinitely per the motion below. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Including everything that was for up to a year? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are showing a total disrespect to ArbCom's decisions and people's views so why should ArbCom trust you'd change your behavior and change the terms of teh restrictions? Working on a guideline could be your opportunity to show us that you are here to collaborate and get rid of your radical behavior (you are right and therefore you are going to do this and that according to your principles kicking all other people's ideas against the wall). Well, ArbCom has decided that it won't change anything whatsoever. All restrictions remain as they are with the AfD restriction indefinitely. Ok, now we've got other important things to solve. Your case is over. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back to request other clarifications shortly. This clarification thing isn't over yet. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there would be no "others". You must prepare a list of all your questions and ask for a clarification once or we'd be obliged to ignore your requests and consider them disruptive and block your account. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll prepare a list of other questions by the end of the today. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further requests

Just to get the Arbitration Committee prepared, I will be requesting further clarifications of the remedies after this request is closed. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This and other remedies

"Mythdon admonished"

Regarding this remedy.

In regards to "should Mythdon engage in any harassing behaviour on or off wiki, which includes attempting to seek Ryulong's identity on or off wiki, or attempting to contact Ryulong off-wiki" - Does this mean "limited only to" or "including but not limited to"?—Does it only apply to those explicitly mentioned harassing behaviors, or is it extended to harassment such as not leaving someone alone when they ask you to, threatening, stalking, etc? Minus the identity seeking, is it limited or not limited to Ryulong? Also, does it include trying to find out whether or not a Wikipedia user has a Youtube account, or other off-wiki internet account?

It is absolute. No off-wiki contact with Ryulong and no off and on-wiki seeking Ryulong's identity. Any attempt to try to link a Wiki user to an off-wiki person (and vice-versa) should be considered as harassment and people attempting it get sanctioned. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to "then he may be sanctioned in accordance with the enforcement provisions." - Will these sanctions be made through a motion by ArbCom or will it be an administrators discretionary sanction?

No need for motions for admins to sanction violations of ArbCom case's ruling and motions applied to you. Enforcing administrators do not need to consult us except for very exceptional cases depending on their discretion. Don't forget that ArbCom members can also act as enforcing administrators themselves depending on their discretion. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, about "attempting to contact Ryulong off-wiki" again - Does this forbid me from responding to off-wiki contact from Ryulong? Is he prohibited from contacting me off-wiki persuant to this remedy? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is hypothetical since there has been no evidence of Ryulong contacting you off-wiki. If he does, don't respond but report it to us so we can pass a motion. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What "motion"? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A new one. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Ryulong admonished"

In regards to "for contacting administrators in private to seek either blocks on users he is in dispute with, or the performance of other administrative actions." - Does this forbid him from seeking blocks on editors he is in dispute with, whether he is seeking it on/off-wiki?

This is none of your business. He's the one concerned by this and if he got any doubt he could ask it himself. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to "any further occurrence would lead to sanctions." - While I do understand that there is already an enforcement, what sanctions will be placed on him should they occur again? Has this sanction already been chosen, or will this sanction be chosen based on the evidence?

This is none of your business. He's the one concerned by this and if he got any doubt he could ask it himself. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to "identifying personal information of Wikipedia users" - What does this mean? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It means what it means. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Mythdon strongly urged"

In regards to "to take his specific concerns about the verifiability of the articles to a wider venue such as Wikipedia:Village Pump, other sister WikiProjects or the Verifiability policy talk page itself and consult his views with others. He is then advised to report the views of others to WikiProject Tokusatsu for discussions;" - Will this just be done once, or shall I do this on a regular basis?

The idea is to get you used to flexibility and accepting other people's input while working for consensus. You cannot achieve that with a single post. The other idea is to get you work hard to establish a guideline with others. Therefore, you are urged to discuss, discuss and discuss it (not 3 or n times literally). You do it until you get positive results that would benefit the project. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to "to enhance his level of communication with editors." - What does this mean? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It concerns mainly the volume of questions you are asking people. You are urged to reduce that volume because people who ask over and over the same questions need to enhance their level of communication in order for them to be able to cope with the level needed for editing collaboratively in Wikipedia. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Conduct probation"

And finally:

In regards to the "edit warring" - Is this a zero-revert-rule, a one-revert-rule, or will administrators block based on their discretion (i.e. block if they think it is preventative)?

I am not going to prejudge administrators' discretion but reverting is bad and frowned upon. It would be a sign that you've not learned lessons or that you just here to disrupt and disregard the spirit of the ArbCom's rulings. It is up to you to test the waters. Nothing is guaranteed. Remember that also arbitrators can wear the admin hat and act upon it themselves so please don't discount that option. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, do administrators have the power to place revert restriction on me (i.e. [number]-revert-rule)?

In regards to "Ryulong" - Do administrators have the power to restrict me from commenting on or to Ryulong should my conduct towards the user be considered inappropriate?

Absolutely... refer to Wikipedia:General sanctions#Types of sanctions. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to "any administrator approached directly by Ryulong for enforcement should not act directly. In such a situation, raise both Ryulong's and Mythdon's conduct in normal venues for review." - What does this mean? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It means that Ryulong cannot just run to administrators and complain/ask for your block and have administrators blocking you on the spot. That is part of a restriction imposed on him due to the finding of facts reviewed during the arbitration case. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will the probation be paused or restarted during/after each block or topic ban? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probation can be restarted as we do usually reset blocks. I've never heard of a pause. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to take a break, would the probation be paused? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. We don't pay for holidays. Take your break whenever you want; the probation period would remain active without a pause. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if it were a year or longer, then would it be paused? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are planning to go for a wikibreak for 10 years and come back with the same behavior then let me assure to you that you'll be blocked on spot and if you'd encounter me at that time I'd block you for the same period of that break. So, think about that. Don't go for a break to avoid the probation. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do administrators have the authorization to extend the duration of this probation? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just answered your question above saying that administrators have all the powers. Read it before asking! I am not going to clutter this page anymore by providing the same link again. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Therefore and as a preventive measure, restrictions apply to all WikiProjects;" - Does this change the coverage of the whole probation to cover all WikiProjects? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look Mythdon. a) I asked you yesterday to prepare a list of all questions at once. You are not respecting it now. b) the answer to this question is just there before it... plain and crystal clear. This is like asking if "yes" really means "yes". Now, you stop asking please or I'll block you for disruption. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryulong

Placing a topic ban on an editor is up to the community and has absolutely nothing to do with any editing restrictions placed on Mythdon by the arbitration committee. This is just wikilawyering by Mythdon to avoid the inevitable discussion concerning his editing practices by other users in

WP:TOKU.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Statements like this by Mythdon show that he is not willing to abide by the arbitration restrictions/suggestions/whichever. He has shown no headway in communicating with

WP:TOKU or sister projects or the village pump in working constructively with other users. He has flatly stated that he will send pages to AFD without discussing things with other users, and his comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu#Search soon to begin show that he was never willing to work with the WikiProject, flatly ignoring mine and JPG-GR's requests that he not act in the way he plans.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Again, this shows he is not here to work collaboratively.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this is an example of Mythdon's attempt at finding a new venue for his wikilawyering.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that I wasn't exactly helpful at the later points in the "Search soon to begin" discussion. And how else will further issues be solved without my own input when people only get one part of the issue.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC) originally posted here. Moved here by John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I not be able to converse directly with him when he brings up things that he's going to do to the articles? Or respond to his accusations in the wider forum of ANI?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Protonk

The ongoing AN/I discussion is instructive for arbs as to the problem at hand. The general dispute should be resolved by the community but the specific clarification remains a live issue. Does the past case prevent myth's current behavior (as described in the linked thread)? Protonk (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hersfold

The committee issued two findings of fact ("Mythdon's interpretation of policies and guidelines" and "Mythdon stance toward the articles" immediately after) and a remedy ("Mythdon strongly urged") in this case that seem to deal directly with this. In them, it is noted that his interpretation of the verifiability guidelines in this respect is overly strict and at times disruptive. In the discussion Mythdon has linked, he has unilaterally stated that he will be nominating a wide swath of articles for deletion if he can't find sources (which all other three users involved in that discussion have stated he cannot be trusted to do). Mythdon has (as is usual with him) flatly refused to accept any of the suggestions or pointers offered to him in that discussion, and stated that "Requesting deletion at AfD is gaining consensus", which appears to be a direct contradiction to the remedy I mentioned earlier.

Furthermore, I'd note that this is the third request for clarification brought forth to ArbCom by Mythdon, all of which have been characterized by wikilawyering by Mythdon. This is becoming very tedious that every week we have to go through all of this again because Mythdon has felt he's found another loophole through which he can continue his disruptive editing.

a/c) 23:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Statement by Xeno

I recently attended to an unblock request by Ryulong. It was for a stale AN3 report [13] (ended 07:15 in agreement, reported 19:27), which Mythdon reported at ANI 19:41 [14], later attempting to have the blocking administrator increase the length [15] See also an earlier conversation between Mythdon and the filing party earlier that day [16] as well as [17], [18]. The parent thread to Mythdon's had already run its course on the matter and ended at 08:24 [19].

I haven't reviewed the case in full, but it seems to me that these two editors could each benefit from added distance between them.

(FYI, I conferred with the blocking admin via email and unblocked Ryulong and his dispute partner.) –xeno^talk 00:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note by Ncmvocalist

I've proposed a restriction on Mythdon at the ANI discussion; if it's imposed, it can be imposed either under the conduct probation from the decision, or as a community sanction. This is more of a courtesy notice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Recused... again... although commenting above.
a/c) 23:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Request: Could clerks/Arbitrators CE the motion below so it points to requests for enforcement?--Tznkai (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did this help? Carcharoth (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

Recused. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mythdon, you have been asked —among others— to "work on producing a genuine guideline for the articles falling under the scope of the WikiProject Tokusatsu. Project's participants [are] urged to work in collaboration with [you] while seeking outside advice and help." Instead of working on it you've been getting back to your tendentious ways and the behavior which brought you to ArbCom in the first place. Failing to abide by the cited remedy I'd be considering further requests for clarification or mass AfDs as a highly disruptive tactic from your part. This is the last warning ever from my part. I hope this clarifies and answers your request up here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also recused. Risker (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is little to add to FayssalF's comment, save perhaps that he is being gentle. — Coren ^(talk) 21:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Coren and FayssalF. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mythdon, I am going to be as plain as possible. As part of the remedies pertaining to you - "This includes, but is not limited to, edit warring and failing to appropriately pursue dispute resolution and to show better communication skills." Right now you are skating on thin ice. Writing large amounts of material at AN/I and pointedly nominating material will result in conflictual situations very quickly. The ability to edit collaboratively is a prerequisite to editing at wikipedia. If you are unable to do that, and you are seen to play a part in furthering conflicts, admins do have the ability to block you as per the remedy. Spending time at AfD is often highly confrontational. If you wish to risk getting into conflict there so be it, but if an uninvolved admin views your role as disruptive there or anywhere else, you have been warned. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mythdon, because a mentor was not found or wanted, the conduct probation allows for discretionary sanctions to be devised by uninvolved administrators. As a result, any disruptive conduct by you may result in sanctions of any sort. There is no need for clarification from us at this time; come back when an administrator does impose a restriction, and we may review its appropriateness.
You are urged to work collaboratively, and avoid generating hostility. Nominating many articles for deletion would not be unhelpful. Saying "My decision is firm, and will remain the same. I will nominate these pages for deletion if no reliable or relevant source can be found, period. No questions asked." is not appropriate in light of Arbcom decision.
Ryulong, you should be avoiding participation in any discussions calling for sanctions against Mythdon. Your extensive involvement in the second half of this discussion is not helpful, as you are escalating the issue rather than trying to look for solutions other than having Mythdon banned. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ryulong, you seemed to be very quick to give your input about Mythdon. If I were you, I would never comment in direct reply to Mythdon unless nobody else has done so for 2 hours. Only then would you know whether the community actually "needs" your input or not. However irrespective of whether your input is needed, it is not wanted on threads about Mythdon sanctions. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

Pursuant to the latest developments related to the recent Arbitration case involving Mythdon and Ryulong and discussions on the Arbitration Committee mailing list, the Arbitration Committee has noted that there has been no changes in the behavior of Mythdon since the closure of the Arbitration case:

a) the user has made no effort whatsoever to find a mentor;

b) the user has made no effort whatsoever to engage himself in serious discussions to produce a guideline for the articles falling under the scope of the Tokusatsu WikiProject as directed by this remedy;

c) the user has targetted another Wikipedia area to impose his stance on verifiability disregarding the ArbCom's view concerning his stance on the matter;

d) He recently threatened to mass AfD articles which do not satisfy his standards in terms of

verifiability

;

Therefore, the Committee has decided to extend the restrictions imposed in order to facilitate more collaboration in the field of conflict and to ensure the smooth running of the project in general and protect other areas in particular. The terms are as follows:

a) Mythdon is prohibited from partcipating at any

Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion discussion which involves verifiability and reliable sources. That includes —and is not limited to— the WikiProject Tokusatsu

. The restriction is indefinite pending the production of a guideline. Mythdon —as well as everyone else— should respect the terms of the guideline once it is produced;

b) Mythdon is reminded of the importance of participating in a good faith effort to help produce a genuine guideline for the cited WikiProject, including but not limited to verifiability. He is again urged to start working on this guideline;

b) Mythdon is prohibited from making any comment on reliable sources or verifiability unless comments are made at the talk pages of those guidelines and policies, or at the Tokusatsu WikiProject talk pages;

d) all other restrictions imposed during the arbitration case involving him remain in place;

e) in the light of Mythdon's resignation from the WikiProject, the ArbCom notes that any similar behavior which had led to this situation would be dealt with similarly. Therefore and as a preventive measure, restrictions apply to all WikiProjects;

e) should Mythdon violate the above restrictions, any administrator may block him for a period up to two weeks per incident, escalating to one year per incident after the fifth one. Any discussion about possible violations should be held at

requests for arbitration enforcement

;

f) any further request on this matter should go through

requests for arbitration enforcement

beforehand. Administrators there are able to help answer any question.

Once the motion passes, Clerks will update the original ArbCom case accordingly.

Support

Oppose

I think some form of increased restrictions are needed, but this goes too far. Mythdon may not be the right person to be raising these issues, but he is not alone in raising them. See [20], [21], [22], and the dissenting opinions at this DRV (still in progress, permalink to page at time of writing provided), In short, I would have, and did, support the restriction on nominating articles at AfD. But I can't support a complete ban on participating at AfD (or indeed DRV). It is important that areas like AfD remain as open as possible, and not subject to "opponents" in a debate being banned from participating at AfD. The consensus at AfDs should be based on all available input, not restricted in this manner. We should trust admins to discount those opinions that fall a long way outside policies, and not ban minority opinions. There are many at AfD who do argue from places a long way outside policy - we are not proposing to ban those editors from AfD. I think the original restrictions suggested by Fayssal (not the later, more restrictive proposal), or the proposal here, would have been adequate. I also agree with John that Mythdon's repeated requests to ArbCom for clarification of hypothetical situations is unhelpful. Carcharoth (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The behavior shown by Mythdon so far is not suitable to be accepted in AfDs. I am certainly not going to let his usual radical stance be transferred from the WikiProject to AfDs. We do ban and block people on a daily basis, let alone restricting inadequate behavior from venues where their presence would be unhelpful. You produce in a collaborative way a guideline and abide by it alongside other colleagues and get the keys. You refuse and pursue radical behavior as if no prior Arbitration case has taken place and you stay out. It is both encouraging the establishment of a guideline and a preventive measure. I am not prepared to see prolems coming from Mythdon again and I am not going to gamble this time. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Discussions

I've updated the motion based on my recent answers to Mythdon's recent questions. I've explicitly . Arbitrators, please review terms a) and e). I've also left a note at the WikiProject talk page. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'm allowed to comment down here, but whatever. Don't bother changing anything that regards Mythdon resigning from anything. He's just doing it to garner attention and see if it will prevent him from being restricted. Take a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tokusatsu#Mythdon_is_probably_quitting.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly allowed per WP:BURO but you are certainly not allowed to call others "drama queens" per WP:NPA. This is your last warning Ryulong. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not consider "drama queen" a personal attack.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ArbCom believes it is. Some people may not see it that way and that's why we have ArbCom to say whether it considers it a PA or not. Please avoid it in the future. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong

Case affected: Ryulong arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Remedy "Ryulong admonished"
Enforcement "Ryulong and users' identity seeking"

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

[23] (Ryulong)

Amendment 1

"Ryulong admonished" (term A)
From the current wording: "(A) For his behaviour off-wiki and directed to refrain from seeking Mythdon's identity off-wiki, identifying personal information of Wikipedia users, and from disclosing that information to others. Should Ryulong engage in any attempt to seek Mythdon's identity off wiki or in disclosing any information about Mythdon, then he may be sanctioned in accordance with the enforcement provisions;"
Modifying to "(A) For his behaviour off-wiki and directed to refrain from identifying personal information of Wikipedia users, and from disclosing that information to others. Should Ryulong engage in any attempt in disclosing any information about Mythdon, then he may be sanctioned in accordance with the enforcement provisions;""

Amendment 2

"Ryulong and users' identity seeking"
That this enforcement be terminated.

Statement by Mythdon

I am requesting an amendment to "Ryulong admonished" and the enforcement "Ryulong and users' identity seeking".

Taking a good look at the findings and evidence, there is no finding or evidence that Ryulong was seeking any users identity. Finding "Ryulong discussing the identity of Mythdon" makes no mention of identity seeking, but mentions identity discussion, if anything.

I think it is totally unjust to make a remedy on something that isn't found to had been going on—Trying to solve what is not happening. This is one of those cases. Was there a finding or any actual evidence that Ryulong sought any user personal information? No. Sam Blacketer voted against this enforcement for exactly that reason. Therefore, I request that we terminate this enforcement, and modify the admonishment to only direct Ryulong to refrain from doing what he was found to do. Note that this is not based on my personal preferences, but based on what is necessary for the cases judgment. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Casliber

Well, I am pursuing this because there is no finding of fact or evidence that Ryulong was actually seeking my identity. Arbitration remedies are to ensure that problems don't recur, not to ensure a problem never starts. It is not whether I give him permission to seek my identity, but whether the arbitration remedies serve a purpose. These do not obviously serve any purpose other than, if anything, prevent problems that have never occurred. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to John Vandenberg

What I am suggesting is not to make the remedy unenforceable, but to make the remedy fair to the evidence and findings of fact. There is no evidence that Ryulong was identity seeking, which is exactly why I am here. I also have a question, one which should be at Requests for Clarification. Will Ryulong be banned if he violates "identifying personal information of Wikipedia users, and from disclosing that information to others"? I'm curious, because you make it sound so. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Carcharoth

Well, actually, Ryulong does wish for this amendment, and even if he didn't want this to be amended, that doesn't change the fact that this amendment is needed. I will quote what he said here:

"In response to Carcharoth, sure why not. I didn't like this restriction or whatever because it was based on the one-off instance when Mythdon was going out of his way to contact me on other websites and I merely relayed the information to another user, which was blown out of proportion by another edit that I did not make."

With that quoted, "sure why not" + "I didn't like this restriction" equals up to statement of desire for the amendment. If you still doubt his acceptance, please take it up with him on his talk page. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 23:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Amendment 3

Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
Details of desired modification

Statement by Ryulong

In response to Carcharoth, sure why not. I didn't like this restriction or whatever because it was based on the one-off instance when Mythdon was going out of his way to contact me on other websites and I merely relayed the information to another user, which was blown out of proportion by another edit that I did not make.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Recused -
a/c) 02:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Recused - Tiptoety ^talk 03:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

Recused. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On reading this, I am open to this. As the underlying meaning isn't changed, but the wording is made more neutral (?) Can I ask why you are pursuing this Mythdon? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, given that the functional result of the wording is actually the same, but the explicit mention of Ryulong is removed, I am open to this one. I'll see what the others think but I think we can run with this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like Casliber, I'm uncertain as to what the point of all this is. It should be Ryulong filing this kind of request for amendment, not Mythdon. It seems very strange for Mythdon to be filing this request. I am not minded to grant this request unless Ryulong asks for it himself. Carcharoth (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per John, decline. Ryulong should refile if he wants to see these parts of the case amended. Mythdon should refrain from commenting on these parts of the case. Carcharoth (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline as written. The requested amendment alters a remedy that still refers to an enforcement that is proposed to be terminated. The result would be a remedy that is unenforcible. Like Casliber and Carcharoth I am open to an improved wording along these lines, but this amendment isnt it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recused, as I was for the original case. Risker (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per John. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per above. Wizardman 15:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per John. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per John. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: Ryulong (2)

Case affected: Ryulong arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Enforcement #4
Motion 2 (replacement of Remedy #4)

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Mythdon (diff of notification of this thread on Mythdon's talk page)
Ryulong (diff of notification of this thread on Ryulong's talk page)

Amendment 1

Enforcement #4
Desired modification: that Enforcement #4 be vacated and replaced with the heading "Conduct Probation enforcement" and its accompanying paragraph, which is currently found under Motion 2 (which is replacing remedy 4).

Statement by Ncmvocalist

This is pretty straightforward. Although this is not a substantive change to the decision, the enforcement part of a remedy belongs in the enforcement section of a decision; except in the case of temporary injunctions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment 2

Motion 2 (remedy)
Desired modification: that the heading "Conduct Probation enforcement" and its accompanying paragraph, found in the above remedy, be removed.

Statement by Ncmvocalist

This becomes necessary to avoid the potential unnecessary confusion caused (and the repetition otherwise caused by amendment 1). Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by Mythdon

I was actually thinking about asking the Arbitration Committee to remove the mentorship enforcement myself. I, like Ncmvocalist, ask that the Arbitration Committee remove this enforcement as it is moot, and not enforcing anything, and can't be used without the mentorship remedy being in place. Arbitration Committee members, please pass a new motion in which this enforcement be removed. As for the conduct probation enforcement being in the "enforcement" section, I think that it should also be there, strictly for stylistic reasons. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please. ArbCom, pass a motion. Please. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to the Committee's acceptance of this amendment. Please now, one of you, please, please, and I do mean please, propose a motion. Thank you! —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which motion, Mythdon? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A motion to make the modifications desired above. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to pass a motion for modifications. Please, read carefully what Newyorkbrad and other arbitrators say below. Once this amendment is closed, a clerk will make the necessary modifications at the case page. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't amendment requests close following a motion if accepted? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would be true if we were applying strict standards to our applications. It is not the case. Again, please read the arbitrators' views below. They believe this is not a substantive change; it is rather technical. Process must stay fluid and you must avoid instruction creep. You can also have a look at

Wikipedia is NOT a bureaucracy if you got some free time. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Then I guess I'll treat the "arbitrator views and discussion" section as though it is the motion and that the arbitrators are in fact voting. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you'll have to treat what will be written (black on white) at the case page itself as the official resolution. The rest is irrelevant.

Now, all these excessive questions should have been answered by your mentor. Same for your disruptive requests to a couple of administrators today for testing a block when asking them to block you for nothing —just for the sake of curiosity. That adds nothing to 'building the encyclopedia'. Be aware that an admin may block you for real next time for your highly disruptive attitude. You are walking on thin ice already. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mentor thing was over when you and your fellow arbitrators passed a motion to replace the mentorship with the conduct probation, strictly for reasons that I refused to work with a mentor. Now, speaking of "excessive questions", I'm thinking about making another request for clarification, but given that it seems you feel that I've done too much of that process, I wont make another request for a reasonable period of time. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryulong

Kay...—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

Indeed. This is no longer needed and it makes sense to remove it now. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a procedural, rather than substantive, correction and I see no reason it should not be done. — Coren ^(talk) 16:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, recused. As a general procedural matter, I agree that these types of thing can be handled informally. (In Congressional parlance, "I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical and conforming changes to reflect the actions of the committee.") Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, per all the above. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Procedural matter, which I believe is well within the scope of the arbitration clerks to carry out. Agree to this. Risker (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)~~ Recusing per Mythdon's request on my talk page. Risker (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with John and Coren. Since the request is here, it can be dealt with here, but this is the sort of thing that it is often worth running by a clerk first. If in their judgment, such a change can be made, there would then be no need to come here, unless someone contested the change. Carcharoth (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with John, Coren et al.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree, let's get it done. Wizardman 21:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Ryulong (4)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Mythdon

I am here to request a fourth clarification on the Ryulong case.

After some thinking, I have found that, even after my long list of questions in the last clarification, that there are still things that have been left unanswered.

I have the following questions:

Term (C) of the "new remedies and enforcement"; "Mythdon is prohibited from making any comment on reliable sources or verifiability unless comments are made at the talk pages of those guidelines and policies, or at the Tokusatsu WikiProject talk pages;" - Am I also prohibited from inserting or removing any citation of any article in regards to this remedy?
Since the conduct probation was created for reasons that I refused to work with a mentor as directed in its predecessor "Mythdon restricted and placed under mentorship", is mentorship a sanction that administrators have the power to use as a discretionary sanction to enforce this probation?

If I have any additional questions, I will post them in this statement, though I likely wont have any questions in the future, unless the Arbitration Committee decides to amend the case again as they did in the second and third clarification requests. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Recused...
a/c) 20:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Recused - Tiptoety ^talk 00:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recused - MBisanz ^talk 22:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing clerk note This will be closed within the next 12 hours. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 18:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

First question: Inserting citations is why we are all here. Removing citations —except removing irrelevant ones which incorrectly relate to the cited content— is considered vandalism. Second question: Actually, mentorship is not a sanction. It is a remedy that has benefits for the mentored user (inherently for the community). Now, this is an essay for you to read. Don't take it for granted since it is just an essay. That means that mentorship application would be up to the discretion and discussions of the administrators. Repeating... Any further question should be directed to the Arbitration Enforcement. Note that they may still ignore it/them or warn you for excessive and unnecessary questions based on the 'communication' remedy passed by ArbCom. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recused. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I second Fayssal - adding sourced material is good, but removing same is too contentious for you to partake in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Fayssal. Mythdon, if you want advice on other types of work you can do that doesn't involve things that you are restricted from doing, I would be happy to make some suggestions. Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recused. Risker (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Fayssal et al. Wizardman 21:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong (5)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Viridae (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Daedalus969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tiptoety (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Statement by Mythdon

Sorry to be making a new request for clarification while the other one is pending archiving, but given the story here, a new section is needed.

Here's the story in a chronology:

I reverted a rollback by Ryulong, citing "reversion of most likely good faith edit without a reason". Ryulong undid my revert.
Ryulong approaches me on my talk page.
Ryulong reports me to Arbitration Enforcement.
User's make comments at Arbitration Enforcement, with Viridae warning Ryulong that if he continued to misuse rollback, that it would be removed.
Ryulong's rollback gets removed. Persistent violations: [24][25].
The removal is discussed on Ryulong's talk page.
Sandstein suggests a sanction be imposed on me prohibiting me from reverting Ryulong's edits.
Viridae blocks me for 12 hours, to enforce the probation.
Ryulong approaches Tiptoety to discuss the undo feature.

These are just the basics. More detail should be brought up by the other users soon.

While it is without question that it was warranted for me to be blocked for conduct probation term; "edit warring", I am questioning as to whether or not I am forbidden from making such a revert—reverting a rollback due to it being abusive.

After a bit of thought, I probably should have, rather than impose my own preferred action, taken the rollback to

WP:ANI

and let a discussion go on there. It most certainly would not have resulted in a block.

Should Sandstein impose the restriction upon me, which will forbid me from reverting Ryulong's edits, will this restriction be allowed to remain even after the conduct probation ends, will it end alongside the conduct probation, or will this be determined by the imposing administrator, or the Arbitration Committee?

Thank you for taking the time. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctioned: Sandstein has now imposed the revert ban from reverting Ryulong's edits here. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]; And now Sandstein has changed it to "for the duration of the his conduct probation". Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Carcharoth

I thought you didn't need prior attempts at resolution to that level before coming here. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"There does need to have been more attempts to talk about something than has happened here.... " - So, in other words, future requests for clarification should be made if beyond a reasonable doubt that it is in fact needed? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Mythdon, you need to find someone to ask advice from as to whether you should be filing these requests.... " - So, in other words, you're saying that I should find a "Request for Clarification" mentor? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xeno

I would suggest some kind of injunction preventing Mythdon from filing further spurious requests for clarifications or amendments. Perhaps requiring him to have a clerk, arb, or uninvolved admin review the desired request at their talk page, with an eye to clearing it up informally or advising them that it is a legitimate request.

And re-stating my previous statement at a previous clarification or amendment that these two editors would benefit from increased distance between them. (So, in essence, I would endorse Sandstein's imposed restriction: If the rollback was indeed abusive, another editor would be sure to see it and take action.) –xeno^talk 19:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MBisanz

I did comment at the AE thread, explicitly as an involved and recused individual. Since the case ended Mythdon has shown a complete inability and unwillingness to interact with others in a collaborative manner. The endless requests to the Committee appears to serve more to nettle Ryulong and inflate Mythdon's own ego than actually pursue dispute resolution. I would highly recommend to the community/committee that they consider a namespace ban or ban from editing for Mythdon. MBisanz ^talk 20:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved roux

Rather than any nebulous request for clarification here, can Mythdon simply not be directed to stay away from Ryulong? Wasn't that a sanction previously anyway? → ROUX ₪ 21:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

Absent admin opposition, I have imposed the sanction mentioned by Xeno above at [26]. Mythdon's question about the duration of the sanction is now moot because the sanction specifies its duration. Any restriction of Mythdon against filing pointless requests such as this one is beyond the scope of the case's remedies and would need Committee action if deemed necessary. Sandstein 21:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification by Ncmvocalist

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mythdon_and_Arbitration. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Recused, and echoing Xeno and NYB's sentiments that the number of clarifications being requested has become ridiculous, and is beginning to cross the line of disruption.
a/c) 20:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Recused, commenting above. MBisanz ^talk 20:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recused, again. - Tiptoety ^talk 21:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like ill be taking this one then. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 02:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing clerk note This will be closed within the next 12 hours. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 18:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

Recused, but nonetheless hopeful that someone can induce Mythdon to proceed in a more productive direction very soon now, as this situation is becoming ridiculous. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would recuse on this request for clarification if it was indeed a request for clarification of the Arbitration Committee decision. This is not such a request. Risker (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mythdon, you've been directed to the AE for whatever doubt or question you might have. Administrators have the ability to decide on your case. The response to your question can be answered whether by the restricting admin or others who may participate in the AE discussion. Any outcome should be logged. That said, ArbCom retains the right to pass any further restriction/sanction (topic ban, ban) via a motion if needs be. Could a clerk please archive this request? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No action needed by ArbCom. Concur that this is not a matter that needs to be discussed by the Arbitration Committee. While I'm extremely hesitant to block an user from communicating with ArbCom about a matter related to a case where they are a party, I agree with the other user's comments that you (Mythdon) need to put more thought into your requests before you make them. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Fayssal/FloNight. There is absolutely nothing for us to look at. Wizardman 21:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to do here. Mythdon, if you have questions, you need to consider if someone other than ArbCom can answer them (this is why a mentor was suggested - maybe try
WP:ADOPT?). To any of the editors who interact with Mythdon, I would ask that you answer questions he has, and then try and politely disengage and let him know if his questioning becomes excessive. Both Mythdon and the editors he interacts with only need to come here as a last resort if discussions fail or misunderstandings continue. Please, try and resolve these questions elsewhere before coming here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
- I thought you didn't need prior attempts at resolution to that level before coming here" - there does need to have been more attempts to talk about something than has happened here. There is a reason we have arbitration enforcement and talk pages. Just because something relates to the arbitration case does not mean you need to come here every time you have a question. This is exactly the sort of situation where you would go to a mentor and ask them first whether you should come here to ask for a clarification. In this case, they would likely have given you advice that would have answered your questions. Carcharoth (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mythdon, you need to find someone to ask advice from as to whether you should be filing these requests. Everyone who files a request weighs up the pros and cons of doing so. One of the disadvantages of excessive filings is that you get less attention paid to what you are saying. Less is more. If you must make these requests, save them up somewhere in a draft page in your userspace, and then ask someone whose advice you will respect to have a look, and only then come here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline nothing for us to look at. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Fayssal/FloNight. This is getting really old and has prompted an ANI thread to ban Mythdon from arb pages. See my comment there. Mythdon, I strongly suggest you get the hint therefrom. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong (3)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Case affected: Ryulong arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

(I'll let the clerks interpret what is requested for amendment)

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Amendment 1

(See below)
That all decisions that refer to Mythdon by the singular they be reworded to refer to Mythdon as a male.

This includes:

Findings of fact: "Mythdon's interpretation of policies and guidelines", "Mythdon stance toward the articles"
Remedies: "Mythdon admonished"

Statement by Mythdon

All other decisions that refer to me refer to me as a male (which I am), while the above decisions just use the singular they. This is inconsistent wording that needs to be addressed to make the decision wordings consistent. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Amendment 2

"Mythdon restricted and placed under mentorship"
That the strikeout of the text be replaced with the templates {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, with the heading text being "superseded remedy".

Statement by Mythdon

In Arbitration Cases of today, this format has been used for amended decisions. The conduct probation replaced the mentorship remedy. This will allow for consistency with the other ArbCom cases. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor (2)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Amendment 3

Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
Details of desired modification

Statement by Mythdon

Statement by other editor (2)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by Mythdon

As with the second amendment request which was made by Ncmvocalist, this will address the inconsistency issues in the formatting of case. I will be drafting my third request in the amendment request in a while. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this request. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Mythdon is banned for a period of six months. At the conclusion of the ban period, Mythdon will be on a six-month probationary period, to run under the current restrictions." - What will be done with the conduct probation, if the motion, or a similar motion passes? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk response Its fairly obvious that it will be superseded. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 04:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scrub that last comment, I misread what you wrote, or at least interpreted it a different way to what you actually mean. I presume what you mean is, will it restart or will it simply be carrying out the remainder of what time is left? Is this a correct assessment? Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 04:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok scrub that, the point has been clarified. It will be reset to six months after the end of the ban. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 04:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...also, if the conduct probation is removed and replaced with a new probation, what will be done with the restrictions that were imposed upon me under the conduct probation that was imposed in July? Will this "conduct probationary period" be the same conduct probation as the current one? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

to run under the current restrictions... Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 05:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what that means. Can an arbitrator please clarify? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should the ban motion pass, I'll be wondering whether I'll return at the conclusion of the ban period. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though this isn't within the Committee's control, I just want to let the Committee know that I also have an account on the Simple English Wikipedia. Basically, whether the ban motion passes or not, I'll still have some involvement with Wikipedia for the next six month, but the only difference that would be made with the passing is that I won't be at the English version. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or is the Committee basically saying that I should take a break with the ban motion? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Hersfold

However, we're still awaiting possible clarification. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to FayssalF / Questions regarding motion

"During that same period, Mythdon will be placed under the same current restrictions. " - So, in other words, the discretionary sanctions imposed under the current conduct probation will end at the conclusion of the period? Would the "new remedies and enforcement" expire at the date in question? While the motion to impose the "new remedies and enforcement" was in progress, you stated that it had everything to do with the conduct probation. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, would this probationary period be the same type of conduct probation that is imposed right now, or will this be a different probation? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What will be the terms of this "conduct probationary period"? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the current conduct probation is replaced with a new conduct probation (i.e. different terms, etc. ), will "Mythdon will still be restricted from making edits such as unnecessary questions and abusive warnings to users' talk pages." under the current conduct probation still apply? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following your clarification here, I have to ask this. At the end of the conduct probation, which is it:

The discretionary sanctions imposed under the terms of the conduct probation end no later expiration of the probationary period.
The discretionary sanctions imposed under the terms of the conduct probation can be of any duration, even if they remain in place after the expiration date.
Whether to lift/amend the remaining discretionary sanctions at the end of the probation will be decided by a review by ArbCom.

Though much of these questions are probably a repeat of question #1 in this section ("So, in other words, the discretionary sanctions imposed under the current conduct probation will end at the conclusion of the period?Would the "new remedies and enforcement" expire at the date in question?"), this needs to be clarified. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Steve Crossin

I do not agree with your mentorship suggestion. This very reason the conduct probation was imposed was because I refused mentorship. Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Request for clarification: Ryulong (2), which explains the amendment. After an amendment like that for that reason, I doubt ArbCom would accept your proposal anyway. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A message to the Arbitration Committee

Before the ban becomes effective, let me say these things.

I have not even made a single attempt to produce a guideline for WikiProject Tokusatsu articles, as advised in "Participants at the WikiProject Tokusatsu", and emphasized in "new remedies and enforcement added by motion". I haven't even considered doing so

I might make further requests for clarification or amendment following the ban, whether it is with respect to the Ryulong case, or any other Arbitration Case (please note that "any other Arbitration Case" would most likely be a case that I would be an involved party). However, I do hope that it doesn't result in future bans like the one that will be imposed soon

If the Committee feels the need to impose the reformatting that I requested before withdrawing the request following statements by MBisanz, etc, I strongly urge it to impose it

I still have no intention of being mentored, though that part was over when the conduct probation was imposed, this is being said in case the Committee has any intention on imposing any mentorships. This is hinted a few hours ago, with one of my previous comments

If the Committee has any intention on lifting "new remedies and enforcement added by motion" at any point in my tenure on Wikipedia, please note that if I still feel the same way that I do now, that I would restart my campaign of applying verifiability and reliable sources policies/guidelines, by removing statements inconsistent with those policies and sending articles to AfD to apply such policies. If "Participants at the WikiProject Tokusatsu" were to be lifted alongside "new remedies and enforcement added by motion", and if my topic ban from WikiProject Tokusatsu (imposed by Fritzpoll) is not present, such enforcement would take place on WikiProject Tokusatsu as well

Since I am forbidden from applying verifiability and reliable sources policies and guidelines, for the past few days, I have thought to myself that I would apply other policies/guidelines in Wikipedia and start a campaign to apply such policies and guidelines

Just wanted to send a message to the Committee before my six month site ban takes effect. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MBisanz

Could the Committee please consider an amendment banning Mythdon from making requests more than once a year? This really has gone on long enough. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in light of [27], maybe just a site ban for 6 months would be sufficient. MBisanz ^talk 02:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hersfold

I second MBisanz's motion. This is getting ridiculous, and this request is nothing but pedantry that once again wastes the time of ArbCom and the clerks. Mythdon's behavior here is becoming severely disruptive, and that fact that he is back here again after a clear warning not to return the last time shows he has absolutely no intention of stopping. Mythdon needs to be banned from ArbCom pages at the very least, however I don't believe a site ban would be out of line considering MBisanz's diff above and Mythdon's predilection for similar disruptive by-the-book-ness elsewhere.

a/c) 03:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Reply to Mythdon

I believe "to run under the current restrictions" is fairly clear; it means the editing/conduct/whatever restrictions that are currently applying to you as a result of the Arbitration case would be restarted following your ban, to last for six months.

a/c) 05:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Statement by Daniel

What they said. This has gone beyond ridiculous. It will be particularly humourous if it gets to the point where all the clerks have commented to express their opinion, and have hence recused, and therefore there'll be no-one left to process the absurd number of amendment and clarification requests he files. Daniel (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steve Crossin

Normally I wouldn't comment, but with recent interaction wiu Mythdon at the Lapsed Pacifist workshop page, and my talkpage [28], as well as the repeated amendment requests, that Mythdon may be obsessed with arbitration, or at the very least, he has lost touch with our focus - building an encyclopedia. This happens to all of us now and again, but editors can be offered a spare clue, and get their eye back on the ball. Mythdon seems to have rejected several offers of clue, so a siteban may remedy this. A lot can be learned from a site ban - I know from experience. It seems this motion has already passed, and I note that Mythdon intends to edit at Simple Wikpedia. They are a welcoming community, and I wish Mythdon the best of luck there, but warn him to not repeat his mistakes here.

The clock is ticking.... 00:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Suggestion

To do a bit of a backflip on above, but being banned is truly awful, it carries a stigma for years, and I liken it to being a caged, muzzled animal in a zoo, with people poking you with sharp sticks. It's horrid. Perhaps an alternative could work? Let's say, a ban for 6 months to a year from RFAR, his current restrictions to last a year. Additionally, he could be placed under a mentor, and have to complete a structured program, to the satisfaction of the mentor, before he can resume normal editing. Perhaps Mythdon could be offered 2 options. A) Compulsory mentorship, ban from rfar and current restrictions, where a violation would result in a siteban of one year, or b) refuse mentorship, 6 mth ban. The mentorship option offers a way of reforming his behaviour issues, where a straight out ban does little but isolate the issues, rather than actively fix them. I'm happy to do this myself, I happen to have a structured mentorship program already built. I feel reform is preferable to simply solitary confinement, which is basically what a ban is.

The clock is ticking.... 00:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Reply to Mythdon

Well, to put it plainly - you're a fool to think you don't need mentorship. If you really think that there's nothing wrong with your behaviour, and you intend to file more requests once the below ban expires, then I question as to what purpose a six month ban would serve. What are you going to learn from the ban, or is it simply going to be a time-out period, where things will resume as before after the timeout period is over?

The clock is ticking.... 00:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Statement by Atlan

I'll echo Steve Crossin and wonder what purpose a 6 month ban serves, other than to keep Mythdon from bothering everyone with inane questions for half a year. Even as the current motion has apparently passed, Mythdon still keeps asking questions all over the place and states his intent to continue to do so and to continue to file requests for clarification and amendment, after the ban. Furthermore, he continues to reject any kind of solution offered. Now, he's either mind-bogglingly clueless, or taking everyone for a ride (I suspect the former). Either way, a 6 month ban seems pointless.--Atlan (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't alone in your view. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Recused MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recused once more.
a/c) 03:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Recused. Daniel (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

Motions

Motion 1

Motion enacted - Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 00:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of six months. At the conclusion of the ban period, Mythdon will be on a six-month conduct probationary period, to run under the current restrictions.

Support:

Mythdon has exhausted the patience of both the community and committee, this is now needed. Tweak if necessary. Wizardman 04:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added "conduct" to "probationary period". -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not interested in building an encyclopedia. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 21:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mythdon, examine the edits you have made in relation to the case, since the case closed, and ask yourself why you kept pushing the boundaries and repeatedly asking for clarifications and amendments when you were told that this was wasting both your time and ours. You were told many times to accept your sanctions and move on and develop other interests. I would still give you the same advice, but to develop interests outside of Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recuse

Recused. But I am sorry it's come to this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' discussions

To clarify for once. The six-month conduct probationary period starts right after the end of the ban (from March 2010 to September 2010). During that same period, Mythdon will be placed under the same current restrictions (details of restrictions can be found at the updated case's page). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What will be the terms of this "conduct probationary period"? --> Nothing would change at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Motion 2 except the period of 1 year which will be superseded and become 6 months starting from March 2010. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request to amend prior case: Ryulong

Initiated by —Ryūlóng (竜龙) at 08:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected: Ryulong arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Remedy 1: Ryulong desysopped

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Amendment 1

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Ryulong desysopped
Adminship reinstated

Statement by Ryulong

For the past eight months I have been working on the encyclopedia portion of the project almost exclusively, working on articles, contributing to the manuals of style that I most often encounter, and trying not to cause a scale of the problems that I had encountered with administrative tools. Other than removal of rollback rights after a dispute with Mythdon prior to his ban from the project (I cannot find where the discussion that resulted in this took place) and a couple of 3RR blocks (#1, #2) that were placed hours after the edit wars died (and were later lifted) I have done nothing that requires administrative action to prevent me from doing anything.

With the Twinkle rollback I have used the function to give reasons along with the rollback less than the vandalism tagging one (I have used it and then realized the edits were not meant to deliberately cause damage, but these are rare) and the undo button more to leave comments as to why I am reverting edits.

I will admit that my communications with Powergate92 (talk · contribs) have been getting strained, but I doubt that the issues will escalate to what occurred between myself and Mythdon (talk · contribs).

When I have the administrative tools back, I will use them for what they were intended: maintaining the project, dealing with speedy deletions, blocking vandalizing users, helping settle disputes that show up on ANI and the related boards, etc. I will not use administrative rollback in my primary topic area unless it is blatant vandalism (as a few long term problem users have been cropping up lately within it). I will not threaten to block as a scare tactic. I will convene with other administrators before I perform what may be controversial actions.

If it is requested, I will agree to a form of some period where I am watched to make sure I do not fall back on the methods I used in the past and I expect to be placed under scrutiny once more. I mean the best for this project and I would like to help out once more with the extra buttons available.

To Jtrainor: For one thing, RFA has changed a good deal since I was given the extra buttons 3 years ago. Second, this option has always been available for me to use per the motion in question.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Jtrainor

Is there some reason you can't use RfA? Jtrainor (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by WereSpielChequers

No view as to the merits of this particular appeal, but entirely supportive of Arbcom having the lesser power of temporary desysop as well as the power of permanent desysop. The implication of that being that "or by appeal to ArbCom no less than 6 months after the closure of the case." means that Ryulong has the right of appeal to Arbcom in this case. So Arbcom should resysop him if they feel that he has done what Arbcom wanted him to do last May when they desysopped him but gave him leave to appeal after 6 months.

For the future I would suggest that when doing temporary desysops Arbcom should make it clear whether the right of appeal is for a fresh look at the case, or for a resysopping based on particular changes in editing activity. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cube lurker

If a good case can be made for returning Admin rights to this user, this case should be made to the community. Even if I were to concede that there may be reasons for Arbcom to restore adminship without a new RFA, that reason needs to be more than concern that the community would not support the RFA. If the user has avoided returning to RFA for this reason, than this proposed restoration could be seen as an attempt to over-rule community concern.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is my general comment on process. I've done a little more research on this candidate. I'm a little unsure how much more to say. Some recent edits i've found concerned me. It's a resolved situation so I'd say it's not worth mentioning here if this is going to be refered back to the community. On the other hand I don't want to come back tomorrow an find out that Arbcom has restored the bit on the reasoning that the only comments were about process, not specifics. I will await some sort of guidance on the question, should I discuss this here further.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Malinaccier

From what I know of RfA, I doubt that Ryulong would be judged by the editors there solely on the reason his tools were removed. My opinion is that he should be judged in context of his arbcom case, as the community has already judged him worthy of the tools. RfA has changed, and if Ryulong had not committed the infractions he was found guilty of, he would still have the tools. Because of this, all of his editing skills and judgement should be considered acceptable except for those brought up in his arbcom case. The community should still have input on this decision, but RfA is not the correct venue from what I can see. Malinaccier (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Robofish

While ArbCom certainly has the right to restore the sysop bit to Ryulong if they wish to do so, I feel it would be better in this case to require a new RFA. I think the sysop bit should only be restored in cases of clearly temporary desysoppings; this one wasn't temporary, but rather indefinite, until such time as ArbCom wishes to overturn it. Unless there are reasons to think the original desysopping was flawed, Ryulong's status should stand, and he should try to regain the tools through the usual process of gaining community consensus in an RFA. (Yes, RFA is unfortunately different from how it used to be - it seems a lot harsher these days - but that's not really relevant here.) Robofish (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Balloonman

I agree 100% with WSC. This avenue for resysop was explicitly stated in the previous ruling, thus it is an option for resysopping. IMHO, it is up to the Committee to determine if time served justifies restoring the bit. The only way that an RfA should be required would be if ArbCOM didn't feel that his actions have changed or improved---eg refused to act in a manner previously indicated in their past statements. Should that happen, then ArbCOM refusal to act would almost definately hurt his chances at an RfA. As per WSC, I have not looked into the particulars of this case, so this is a general support of ArbCOM's rights and responsibilities as laid out in the initial motion.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC) @Knight, I think your point is exactly why WSC and I worded our comments the way we did. Neither of us are taking a position related to the case in question, but rather upon the Committee's obligation to do so when the Committee made the option to appeal to them a possibility. R- was desyssopped at Committee behest, with the caveat that he could go through another RfA or apply to the committee. These were the options presented to him at the time. IMO, it is within his right to make this request, and the committees right to reinstate the tools. It is also appropriate for you to refer this to RfA, but I don't think the default should be that. IMHO, moving in and out of adminship should be easier than it is. That is the only way that aminship will ever live up to the monicker, no big deal. Sending cases back through RfA, does not make it easier, but harder.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by otherlleft

There has been ongoing discussion about the ever-increasing standards applied to editors at RfA. For good or ill, these standards are the ones accepted by the community at this time. The level of scrutiny given to most editors in that process is likely much higher than that which could be given by the small number of ArbCom members who will render this decision, and applying that community standard is particularly appropriate in this case. Resysopping this editor will necessitate a higher level of monitoring than is the norm (as the editor concedes), and I believe that there is no reason to place that decision on so small a number of other editors, even ones given a high degree of trust. I am generally opposed to any resysopping without a new RfA, and specifically opposed to it in this instance.--

otherlleft 15:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

@Carcaroth/Fritz: Generally agree that some community opinion should be sought. Why not simply make a section at
WT:RFA inviting comments here? –xeno^talk 16:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Recused MBisanz ^talk 16:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Input requested at
WT:RFA#Input requested at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Arbitrator views and discussion

In keeping with my position that correctly de-sysopped users about whom there is no relevant non-public information should use RFA if they wish to regain adminship, I do not support this request. However, my views on this do not seem to be shared by most of ArbCom, so a motion to amend is certainly a possibility. Steve Smith (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is a case where an RfA would be most appropriate. The motion indicates several problems that led to removal of the tools and the community should have a chance to weigh in on whether or not to return them. Shell ^babelfish 23:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recused as a participant in the case.
a/c) 04:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. I'm recused in Ryulong's case (a borderline recusal, at the request of a party to the case, but I'll stick with it), but I'll offer a general comment on the practice of the committee's reserving the right to restore adminship without an RfA to an editor who's be desysopped under one of our decisions. This practice is best read as an unspoken caveat to any decision in which we desysop an editor: "X is desysopped" (or, what is equivalent, "X's administrator privileges are revoked") can often mean "X's administrator privileges are suspended indefinitely." In other words, unless conduct is so outrageous that we would never restore adminship, we retain the inherent right to do when we think developments (usually, continued good work on the project without repetition of the types of issues that led to the desysopping) warrant, just as if we used the alternative wording. Our alternative otherwise would be to impose time-limited suspensions, which would end automatically whether or not the editor seemed suitable for re-adminship, and I don't see how that would be better for anyone. Thus, I see no problem with our existing practice of entertaining requests to amend decisions imposing desysopping. As indicated, I offer no view on whether the request should be granted in this instance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recused in a similar way as is Newyorkbrad. I largely concur with his other comments. Risker (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided - my guiding principle is normally that adminship should not be a big deal, and should be removed and returned far more easily than it is at the moment. However, the community and those at requests for adminship (RFA) often do make adminship a big deal (and are also very slow to forgive, sometimes), and there should be some way to get community input, so not quite sure what to do here. In principle, not opposed to granting this request, but am wondering is there is a way to gauge community feeling on the matter short of an actual RFA? Carcharoth (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seek community input: RfA is such a den of horrors that I am personally reluctant to cast any former admins in its general direction. Suggest a temporary community input process where the community is invited to comment on whether this former admin should be resysopped. Arbcom can then base its decision on the consensus there. Open to thoughts on this idea, which we can enact by motion Fritzpoll (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in favour of RfA. This should be up to the community to decide. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in favor of RFA. The community's remit is to grant rights in controversial circumstances. We are essentially asking the community to do the same thing in these "discussions", with us judging consensus instead of the crats. Why not just go all the way? KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noting RFA is an option. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Rlevse and others. Roger Davies ^talk 21:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose amendment. I generally do not favor ArbCom adminship restoral, and see no exceptional case for it here. RFA is open to you. Cool Hand Luke 15:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case: Ryulong

Initiated by —Ryūlóng (竜龙) at 02:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected: Ryulong arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Finding 20: Ryulong discussing the identity of Mythdon
Remedy 3a: Ryulong admonished...
Enforcement 2: Ryulong and users' identity seeking

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Amendment 1

I would like these three aspects concerning the seeking of real life identities to be removed entirely from my injunction as they are in no way relevant to what had happened.

Statement by Ryulong

It has been two years since the injunctions against me were filed and these related entries are the ones I still have issues with. As I stated in my original whatever it was that the now banned user Mythdon was the instigator in this supposed "real life identity" searching. Prior to the ArbCom case, Mythdon went out of his way to bother me on my YouTube channel. I still have the incoming and outgoing messages Mythdon sent me via YouTube, asking if the YouTube user Ryulong was in fact me (which it is). The only thing I provided to MBisanz was a link to the profile Mythdon was using which happened to include his age at the time. I have never gone out of my way to seek out the real life identity of anyone, including Mythdon, and I find that these particular findings and injunctions against me are overly unnecessary and they make it appear I had done something which I never did. If necessary, I can provide the messages received through YouTube from 2008 in which Mythdon continued his harassment off site, unprovoked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jclemens: The arbitration was brought up to me recently and I saw these entries and it reminded me that I do not agree with the fact that they were ever made in the first place.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

So you want us to go back two years to right wrongs that you believe were visited upon you then. Why now? Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just pointing out this thread; I've not had a chance to review it or the above. –xeno^talk 03:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Above thread was archived here with no action taken. –xeno^talk 14:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason to lift here, other than the fact that Ryulong disagrees with them, some time after they were originally placed. We're not going to change history here. SirFozzie (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with SirFozzie; this is just disputing the historical arbitration findings. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it is useful or necessary to revise a past case in this manner unless it is to amend an active restriction that has a significant undesirable effect. Whether those findings were correct or not at the time they were made (and I`ve no intention of second guessing the arbitrators that were active on that case here and now), there is no point in editorializing on them today. — Coren ^(talk) 20:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree more or less with Coren on this. Risker (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As per Coren, Risker. The Cavalry (Message me) 01:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification (February 2014)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by —Ryūlóng (琉竜) at 12:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Ryulong arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t); Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Ryulong and IRC

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Ryulong

Lately, I have been the target of harassment by a slew of sockpuppets of editors who have been banned from this website, in some cases for years. Allegedly, these count as "users with whom [I am] in dispute". Is this correct? Considering how

WP:SPI is chronically backlogged and as is evident banned users have all the free time in the world to continue their harassment campaigns, using the #wikipedia-en-spi channel or using IRC to contact an administrator who has been assisting me in on-site requests to notify them of new sockpuppets will solve these issues affecting the site as well as my ability to participate on this site without constant harassment.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

@Carcharoth: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dragonron (actually Wiki-star, with most of the previous investigation held under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zarbon and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zarbon because of Zarbon suffering harassment and impersonation) and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AS92813 (highly likely to be BuickCenturyDriver/Don't Feed the Zords [both same operator], cases previously Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BuickCenturyDriver & Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Don't Feed the Zords).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nug's posting here is irrelevant and retaliatory to the content dispute currently under discussion at

WP:boomerang the thread I started at WP:ANI and his piling onto discussions started by banned users' sockpuppets. The thread he points to at ANI, after he repeatedly tried to derail it, had an administrator arrive and note that the behavior of the user I was reporting was problematic. Sending a message to N-HH to inform him of renewed discussion that he was once a party to is not canvassing, nor is suggesting to him the possible venues in which to raise our problems with Nug's behavior on the article. And no, the "alleged harassment" has not ended. The fact that one banned user has been harassing someone for 8 years and another has returned a year after his last socks were shut down shows that both individuals who have harassed me in the past several weeks will continue to do so once they find the technical means to evade the blocks put in place, as they seem to be adept at.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

@Carcharoth: At this point I don't know if enforcing the ban counts as harassment when it comes to one of the users (see all the edits between protections [also for some reason he's violating copyright now]) but if something can be done about that, then by all means help me figure that out.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat snarky comment by Wehwalt

"Regardless of the original merits of this sanction, five years later it does not appear to be serving a legitimate purpose in preventing disruption."

I am delighted to see such a common-sense statement on ArbCom, though the barn door is long locked on vacancy. That being said, I support the request and motion.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that perhaps it is about time that the community and ArbCom worked together to sunset remedies after, say, two years, unless ArbCom made a specific, fact-based finding that a longer period was necessary, and I don't mean boilerplate. That would include community and administrator imposed blocks and bans.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: Do you mean on changing the policy or thereafter? If the latter, I would amend to say "will not be enforced after two years". Probably "legwork" would only happen if someone asked to return. I doubt there would be many.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Callanecc

@

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AS92813/Archive. And for the record, I also support the motion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by Nug

Ryulong's seems to have an apparent tendency to seek administrative intervention against perceived content opponents, for example this recent ANI thread titled "Nanshu's ad hominem attacks". I've lately come to his attention and this apparent attempt at canvasing here[29] concerns me as I am afraid IRC could be used as a back channel to agitate against his perceived opponents without their knowledge. The existing mechanism at ANI and SPI obviously work, it's transparent and the alleged harassment has ended. --Nug (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful input from Cla68

Ryulong, did you ask for help from the Wikimedia Foundation with all the harassment you have been getting? They are usually really on the ball and eager to help en.wp editors, especially prolific content editors and/or administrators such as yourself, be free from bullying, intimidation, or harassing behavior. The WMF is especially responsive and appreciative of those volunteers that have spent large percentages of their lives helping improve this project. Haven't you been offered the free T-shirt recently, for example? If so, doesn't that mitigate all the harassment you have received over the years? Cla68 (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Recuse since I was involved in dealing with the harassment Ryulong is referring to. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

Given that five years have elapsed, I am open to modifying or vacating this remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've had a chance to review the original sanction I think we can and should just vacate it and will post a motion to that effect shortly.
talk) 20:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

I do hope everyone involved in this discussion understands exactly what this sanction means. It doesn't actually prevent Ryulong from doing anything, it only says that he may be reported to ANI or AE if he is found to be asking for help on IRC. "May be reported" not "must be reported", not "will be blocked for" not "is ordered not to ever do" or anything else. And according to the enforcement logs on the case page this has not been a significant issue in the five years this rather toothless sanction has been in place. I just don't see how a sanction like this is helping anyone as all it says is something may happen, which would be true whether or not arbcom said so half a decade ago.

talk) 19:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Ryulong, before I vote on the motion below, can you provide more details about the recent harassment? If you want to e-mail the details, that is fine, but a pointer on-wiki or by e-mail to some recent SPI pages would help. I want to get a feel for how much of this sort of thing is going on and what potential there is for innocent editors to get caught up in an over-zealous sweep of the area if your proposed alternative to the SPI route is taken. Carcharoth (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@
[•] 23:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

So if this is a good idea, shouldn't Remedy 3(B) be removed too? "Ryulong is admonished ... [f]or contacting administrators in private to seek either blocks on users he is in dispute with, or the performance of other administrative actions. Any further occurrence would lead to sanctions." (emphasis mine). Seems like, at least in theory, voting to get rid of the enforcement mechanism without dealing with this remedy achieves exactly nothing; with or without the enforcement mechanism, people can still go to ANI or AE if he violates an un-rescinded remedy. To be clear, the Arbs supporting this motion so far all believe Ryulong should be allowed to request admin action on IRC or via email, correct? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Motion (Ryulong)

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

The following sanction is vacated with immediate effect.

3) Should Ryulong be found to be seeking or requesting any administrative action on IRC against users with whom he is in dispute, he may be reported to ANI or the Arbitration Enforcement page.

Passed 11 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Enacted - Rs chen 7754 17:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

As proposer. Regardless of the original merits of this sanction, five years later it does not appear to be serving a legitimate purpose in preventing disruption.
talk) 20:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Serves no useful purpose, Roger Davies ^talk 20:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As above.
[•] 23:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Given the further details provided, am happy to support vacating this sanction. However, this doesn't give Ryulong (or any user) carte blanche to make repeated requests via IRC or other off-wiki communication methods in the absence of an on-wiki paper trail. Those administrators, SPI clerks and checkusers responding to his requests must still perform due diligence to ensure that the requests are genuine (i.e. that they are harassment and not a content dispute) and that innocent users are not swept up in this. Ryulong, if the harassment continues, I would encourage you to e-mail the functionaries mailing list to discuss other options. Carcharoth (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not currently useful to protect the project. L Faraone 00:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this sanction is no longer necessary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Technically this is an enforcement provision, not a remedy. But I agree that it should be vacated.
talk) 03:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Although please file more complicated requests on wiki. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though with the caveats above, that complex requests or those which are not time-sensitive should preferentially be filed on-wiki, and that requests made offline must be logged and documented at least after the fact. For Floquenbeam's concern, an admonishment is not an enforceable remedy. Ryulong still should remember to be cautious in making IRC requests. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Albeit with a little more reluctance than my colleagues, and a note that behavior on IRC is still required to meet community norms. However, it can't possibly be true that "an admonishment is not an enforceable remedy" if the admonishment includes a directive not to do something; otherwise what is the point? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per the other supporters. Ryulong should still be cautious about how he proceeds in making allegations, both on- and off-wiki. But he should not be subject to harassment, either, or denied a means of dealing with it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 11:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

For now, mostly to get others' attention regarding my comments in the section above. I see we're at 8 supports, but I'd suggest not closing this out until Remedy 3(B) is dealt with. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC) (changed to support)[reply]

Abstain

Motion (Ryulong 2)

During the original case Ryulong was admonished for excessive off-wiki requests of an inappropriate nature in remedy 3b, which reads in part:

(B) For contacting administrators in private to seek either blocks on users he is in dispute with, or the performance of other administrative actions. Any further occurrence would lead to sanctions.

The admonishment is left in place as warning not to return to the excessive and/or inappropriate behavior of the past, but the final sentence "Any further occurrence would lead to sanctions." is to be stricken.

Enacted - Rs chen 7754 17:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Sorry this got missed in the original motion.
talk) 18:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

--Floquenbeam (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With 1 passing, no harm in this. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not exactly elegant to word this in a way that re-publishes an admonition based on behavior from five years ago, but meh. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
L Faraone 02:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 07:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per Brad. T. Canens (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 11:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[•] 16:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Ala Brad. NativeForeigner ^Talk 16:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request (February 2015)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by —Mythdon at 21:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Remedy "Mythdon further restricted"

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

Lift the new remedies and enforcement concerning verifiability and reliable sources at this remedy

Statement by Mythdon

I am requesting an amendment concerning the restriction barring me from verifiablity/reliable sources that came as a result of this clarification and this discussion

This restriction came as the result of me having unwilling to produce guideline for tokusatsu articles as outlined in the decision at the closure of the case while persisting in the behavior that led to various urges to seek outside input and work more collaboratively of my views regarding verifiability. There not long after I received a topic ban from Tokusatsu/Ryulong after this enforcement of the gratitious mention I made of Ryulong

I have not edited the tokusatsu articles since my unblock given as I held myself to voluntary restriction from editing the topic area

The edits I make these days include contributing to the articles I have interest including television stations and The Sims and making minor corrections to errors in articles like spelling and grammer and vandal fighting. I realize my activity has gone down a bunch since my unblock with having let go of all the old habits and old behaviors that led to my September 2009 banning which six months later when I repeated my habits I was blocked indef. My edits gone down a bit since my unblock and I go into spurts of being active and then inactive and then active again

Having no longer any interest to edit the topic area as I outgrew the subject area and having held myself to the voluntary restriction for the security of allowing myself get over the emotional attachment to the articles and to force myself to be productive in other areas. I had been asked and advised by various editors to go find other topic areas to edit while I was editing the topic area and honestly I can say I never made one positive contribution to the topic area but since my unblock I have made productive contributions to other topic areas with referenced content. I have been stumped on what to do about the situation about me being restricted commenting on reliable sources as on one hand I feel it be wrong to only return to the topic area as part of a process pertaining to a remedy but on the other hand if I have nothing to offer the topic area then I think if I just learned from the behavior that led to it that I can make things a fresh start in other topic areas and a new opportunity to avoid the confrontations and behaviors that led my past sanctions

But having learned from the behavior that led to it from my strict interpretations of policy and failing to collaborate with others about my stances and refusing to produce a guideline, what I am requesting is to lift the no commenting on verifiablity and reliable sources sanctions. I have been watching over the topic area even though I no longer edit it and none of the arguments that occurred that led to the guideline remedy are happening as most of those disputes during the time I edited was by a certain editor (myself) doing whatever he could to get the topic area to where he saw fit as most of the never ending disputes were initiated by myself. So the way I see it is this restrictions purpose has been served in having learned from the behavior and its been five years and a lot of the topic areas problems left when I was topic banned and is now only moot as if I were to source an article I would not be allowed to discuss it if an editor were to question my edits

If the sanction should be lifted I will promise to avoid any behavior that led to the sanctions and urges on verifiability and will work more toward an effort to collaborate on verifiablity and to let go of the old strict interpreations of policies including verifiablity which I already no longer am hung up on strict disruptive intepretation of policy. But if the arbcom decision should be that I return to the topic area to help produce a guideline then thats what I will do. Most of the arbs that were arbs at the time this was put in place are no longer arbs and I recommend all arbs take a look at the case before coming to any decision. I will be bound by any result the arbcom should come of this. Thank you for taking the time to read. —Mythdon 21:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to motion

Noted. I think this is fairest way to go about as opportunity to further work on old past behavior showing I have infact learned from my past sanctions. From what I read of this is that the restriction is to remain in place but to now both simplistically and broadly construe the intent of the remedy. I shall keep this all in mind in my future editing even after the restriction ends. All is noted here and it all works out. —Mythdon 00:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I know much of this case from start to finish, and there is a long history so there will no doubt be some uncertainty regarding what happened here. To bring some context to this, after the original case remedies were enacted Mythdon had initiated a significant number of "clarification/amendment" requests (brace yourself as there's a bit to read in each: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]). The third request/diff is the discussion where this restriction was imposed by way of motion, and his last request is found in the last diff where the site ban in 2009 was imposed. I understand Mythdon appealed to the committee but ultimately his 2012 appeal was directed to the community. The appeal was successful (the community agreed to lift the site ban).

Overall:

I don't oppose this appeal to lift the further restriction, despite an initial reservation regarding the obvious timing of this appeal. He seems genuine in his intention to abide by his promise that we will no longer see the previous disruptive conduct he exhibited (such as tendentious editing, harassment, treating Wikipedia as a bureaucracy, etc.) which brought about the remedies + further restrictions in this case.
I think there should be explicit mention on the case page that if the same problematic conduct issues arise, it should be brought back to the committee to deal with swiftly. I don't think it would be appropriate for dispute resolution to have to start from the bottom if issues persist.
- 5 years, 5 months & 28 days ago is not really the way to look at the duration. Even though the restriction was imposed in August 2009, he was site banned from September 2009 to just before December 2012, so it was only really in place from 2013 - though that isn't much to go on seeing Mythdon made just 85 edits during the entirety of 2013, most of which were over just 3 days in July. So we are then looking at 349 edits from 2014, most of which were during May and June 2014. If that's the sort of irregular activity we can expect, maybe it won't be an issue - but I expect it will increase (seeing his edits were at 2500+ in 2009 and and 4000+ in 2010 when problems were constantly recurring).

I hope that assists somewhat anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kurtis

I was around back when Mythdon was originally banned. At the time, he was known for being extremely terse, unfriendly, and overly concerned with trivialities. See his first RfA back in 2009 to get a sense of what I mean by that. But I don't think it's really relevant anymore, as he's clearly changed quite a bit. He has expressed a genuine understanding of where he went wrong, and as far as I can tell, there have been no problems since being unblocked.

This sanction serves no further purpose and should be lifted. Kurtis ^(talk) 09:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Ryulong: Arbitrator views and discussion

That restriction predates my time on this Committee to the point that I'd never actually tried to parse it. And it is a doozy. I read it, and I'm not sure what the 2009 ArbCom was really trying to do, or what the end restriction actually is. (Example; "Mythdon is prohibited from making any comment on reliable sources or verifiability unless comments are made at the talk pages of those guidelines and policies". Is he banned from questioning the reliability of an individual source, or discussing those polices in the general case?) I'm not familiar with this user, but the clean block log since being unblocked in the fourth quarter of 2012 speaks positively. Courcelles 21:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lwo edit count since the 2012 unblock, I'm more inclined to do a suspension of the sanctions than a complete revocation of them. Courcelles 01:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Mythdon: for the below motion. Courcelles 19:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"5 years, 5 months, 28 days ago" - whew, that's a long time. I'd be interested in seeing any arguments against this.
talk) 21:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
- Support - my comment about the length of time reflected my opinion that that's enough time for someone to change their attitude. I agree with Ncmvocalist that there should be an "explicit mention on the case page that if the same problematic conduct issues arise, it should be brought back to the committee to deal with swiftly."
  talk) 11:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Inclined to support. Going to go through archives to determine what exactly they were going for first though. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The restriction from discussing reliable sources seems a little much... I would be inclined to support a suspension as Courcelles suggested. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the same way as GorrilaWarfare, so I to am thinking Courcelles' suggested suspension is the best way forwards. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The original paperwork on this is not easy to follow. Realistically we can either radically simplify the restriction or suspend it altogether. So, if someone would like to propose something ... Roger Davies ^talk 05:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motion (Ryulong)

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive, so 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

The remedy "Mythdon further restricted (4 August 2009)" is revoked. Mythdon is instead restricted as follows for the longer of one year or 500 edits. If, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, Mythdon: a) behaves disruptively at XFD discussions;

b) unreasonably nominates multiple articles for deletion; or

c) unreasonably places maintenance tags on multiple articles;

then Mythdon may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

Enacted with Mythadon's current edit count being 8910. --

As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 06:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Support

If experienced arbs are finding the 2009 wording clunky, it is time to go in a different direction. I think this covers both a desire for a way out of sanctions, while also addressing concerns of the low edit count since the 2012 unblock. Courcelles 19:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For ease of use, can the clerk who enacts this (if it passes) please note the exact edit count when this is closed, for ease of use later? Courcelles 19:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Made a minor word change (remove "hereby"). Otherwise support. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 20:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

--Guerillero | My Talk 02:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a quite reasonable course of action. Also I echo Courcelles' request to the clerks. --
(ʞlɐʇ) 08:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Roger Davies ^talk 09:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Recuse

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong&oldid=1131471218"

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	7
2–3	6
4–5	5