Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Evidence

Comment by parties:

I'm wondering if an injuction may still be necessary - several of the links Ryulong has given, and some of my interactions elsewhere, almost make it seem as though Mythdon is deliberately baiting Ryulong. I would not be surprised were this to continue despite the case. Otherwise, spot on.

a/c) 21:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by others:

Analysis and proposal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoety's evidence: "This is long term"

As Tiptoety points out this diff, I do discuss something with Mythdon, which I explicitly say "ban" not block. The full statement is:

"If you can't work amicably or constructively in this topic area anymore, you may be banned from it."

This is entirely different from "I will block you".

The block on this IP is not for failing to sign posts but purposefully not signing posts, particularly when the IP was static, responded to my warning, and then continued to respond to me afterwards.

The block on this IP pointed out by Tiptoety is a long term vandal that performs edits like this to articles and things like the following to talk page comments:[1], [2], [3].

In addition, several of the "recent reverts...that shows a unwilling attitude to change" are from the beginning stages of the RFC before it was certified by other users.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

• I don't see a threat of a ban or a block in this diff here.

• A one month block for someone who failed to sign according to the guideline is an exaggerated block, especially if it is their first block ever. Otherwise, I'd ask for evidence that the IP was purposefully not signing posts and see if that was warranted. I also notice that the IP was reblocked 24h later while disabling the talk page edition. Any reason, like an abuse of their own talk page?

• Similar observations and questions for this block.
• I agree that these are actions prior or during the second RfC but I see you defending them Ryulong and I am not sure the periods of the blocks and the talk pages protection were warranted unless I see evidence from your part that they were. What about the rest of the evidence presented by Tiptoety? Any comments about them? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I felt that I had to point out these inaccuracies amongst Tiptoety's evidence that were chosen just because an aspect of them appears wrong, when the whole of the action is justified.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the statement mentioned above by Ryulong ("If you can't work amicably or constructively in this topic area anymore, you may be banned from it.") is not a block threat, but rather a mention of a possible event. He has now twice said that it isn't a block threat, and Tiptoety still makes the assertion that it is. —Mythdon t/c 01:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I see no evidence that Ryulong has directly said "I will block you". Whenever Ryulong has mentioned a potential block in the cited diffs, it has always been of the form "you may be blocked" or "I will seek that you be blocked". This is no different from the standardized template warnings we use on a regular basis and does not in any way constitute abuse of the tools. If anything, it shows that Ryulong does intend to seek outside assistance when proper administrative tools are needed.

a/c) 02:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The thread that Tiptoety mentions in no way concerns this diff. That thread concerns a past block threat by Ryulong in thisdeletion nomination. —Mythdon t/c 02:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Tiptoety: In reviewing the discussion you cite, it seems clear they did not have the necessary context of Ryulong's involvement with Mythdon as we do here.

a/c) 03:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Reply to FayssalF: Not quite sure how I missed this. But, again, I point out that "failing" to sign messages is still different from "intentionally failing" to sign messages. And on that second block, the user in question is a long-term vandal who I have been cleaning up after and preventing further abuse effectively since I got the rollback tool as a monobook.js option. I don't believe that I can go back through my edits to find other IPs all of which correspond to that one editor, but if necessary, I can provide articles where vandalism from that person has occurred periodically. On one occasion, I requested the assistance of

abuse reports, and while action did occur, the user returned on another range and another ISP. On the rest of Tiptoety's evidence, there was nothing that really bothered me in the fact that it was either taken out of context (in which something, at the time, was justified) or plain out wrong. I can admit that I have blocked IP addresses for periods of time that are too long and that I have used rollback to undo edits made in good faith, but are on the whole unconstructive to the project. But this is what I cover in the evidence that I put forth today.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by others:

In response to your last point, there were questionable reverts made (example) after the RFC was filed. That edit I just cited was made on the 5th and the RFC was certified on the 3rd. Tiptoety ^talk 02:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Hersfold: While I agree that the message may have not been a direct "I will block you", the events leading up to that comment leave that impression in the mind of the reader. Also,this ANI thread seems to show consensus that Ryulong did issue an inappropriate block warning towards Mythdon. Tiptoety ^talk02:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Mythdon: I am aware the ANI thread is not linked to the diff we are talking about. I was simply linking to the ANI thread for other examples of block warnings directed at you. Tiptoety ^talk03:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoety's evidence: "This is about Ryulong"

While I think you're absolutely right and reasonable to request focus on Ryulong, I do have reservations when users are being harassed/whatever (per my comment above) - that is enough to cloud any users judgement, whether it's with basic edits or more serious actions. I know that all too well. Personally, there comes a point where if any user isn't protected by such behaviour,this sort of summary will emerge, and we come to a mitigating circumstance. There's no doubt in my, or anyone's mind, that if Ryulong reported this earlier, it ispossible that the problem may have ceased with respect to Mythdon and it would be purely about Ryulong. But, Ryulong tried to handle it by himself without spending a lot of time in dispute resolution or even an administrator noticeboard which often ends in 'no result'. See for example how long a clearer dispute involving harassment took with the Collectonian-Abtract, and precisely how many times people tried to look at it and ended up effectively saying "hmmm...can't do much here...maybe next time". While the arbitration stage was completed promptly (and was one of the great successes of 2008 ArbCom), the stages before it were neither prompt, nor successful.

In other words, our mechanisms for dealing with harassment/whatever are unfortunately inadequate in the absence of clear evidence (aka, the user being forced to deal with it for months at a time before anything is done). Our mechanisms are therefore being gamed. It is relatively true that Ryulong didn't respond to points raised by Mythdon, Tennis Expert or you, but on the same token, Mythdon didn't respond to Ryulong's - this latter part should've been noted as that evidence is undisputedly legitimate.

So although I agree that this is about Ryulong's actions, this is not about Ryulong alone. In the light of this (combined with my previous analysis), can you or someone else please separate the instances of problematic edits/actions/etc. where Mythdon was involved from those where Mythdon wasn't? (In chronological order would be helpful too.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

To end speculations and save some bandwidth starting from this early stage, I'd repeat that this case will look at behavior of all involved parties. -- FayssalF -^{Wiki me up®} 22:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis and request. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% here, my main point is that Ryulong's actions are his and his alone. He is ultimately responsible for the actions on his account. Tiptoety ^talk 15:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis expert's evidence: "During content disputes, Ryulong several times has threatened to get another administrator to block an editor"

This seems to be inaccurate based on the diffs submitted. A user of any standing is welcome to seek (as was suggestedhere) that a user is blocked for disruption. That is essentially what administrator noticeboards exist for - to "request" or "seek" blocks/sanctions, deletions, and other things. Ordinarily, or in isolation, I might have agreed that this was a threat, but given the previous diff, it may have been a typo for "seek". Ryulong, can you please clarify?

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"See" and "Seek" in that context, in my opinion, are synonymous.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Analysis and question. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In context of Ryulong's overall behavior, "see" and "seek" are indeed synonymous, but not in the benign way Ryulong would have you believe. He essentially promised that if another editor does not stop having a content dispute with Ryulong, i.e., does not give in to Ryulong, then the latter will "see" that the editor is blocked or "seek" for the editor to be blocked. In context, either is a threat unbecoming of an administrator in a simple content dispute. Tennis expert (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava Rima's Evidence: "Long Term Blocking Problems"

I haven't exactly the time or attention span at the moment to go digging through my editing history to see what exactly went on with my block of Ottava Rima (it certainly wasn't his first block for edit warring, nor was it his last), but right now the following statement is extremely inappropriate and unfounded:

"His friend Sandstein reviewed the unblock and said to deal with the block."

I don't think I've ever been in any extended contact with Sandstein, nor would I count him as a "friend". Sandstein, from personal experience, is just an administrator who tends to go through

In addition, none of his evidence, other than that single block, is supported by any diffs or suggestions that he'd send emails to the arbitration committee concerning the evidence at hand. Most of it is just his interpretation of the only block (I count one because I unblocked and then altered/reset it) I've ever placed on his account.—Ryūlóng(竜龙) 06:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Reply/analysis/etc.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

My response to Ryulong's claims can be found here. It is long, complicated, but it should shed some light on why I feel that his actions and lack of communication only inflame problems, that it causes blocks to go from being preventative to punitive, and how this problem has existed for over a year.Ottava Rima (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JPG-GR's evidence: Mythdon and the monitoring of Admins' use of Rollback

As far as I can see, warning people of their use of rollback is fine, although not disputed by who I'm responding to so far.

I was looking for rollbacks during the look for recent changes because I felt I needed to make more users follow the

Although unrelated, Arrowned is not an administrator, but rather a rollbacker and that he's had rollback since April 2008.

Rollbacks of removals of templates without a clear explanation is an abuse of the tool, in my opinion. Such rollbacks need edit summaries and without the edit summary, can be considered abusive. I advise such users to use undo for making such reverts as it would be a better option.

The questioned rollback by Xeno was answered and discussed, see here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Analysis/answer to question(s). —Mythdon t/c 03:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Mythdon's evidence: "Continued abuse"

Seeing as Mythdon feels the need to continue to add diffs of rollback that he feels are inappropriate, I will respond to that here.

• This edit, this edit, this edit, and this edit all come from one individual who feels the need to remove those fictional characters' nicknames from articles and in that most recent edit, did a cut-paste move to perform similar edits. This individual has appeared on multiple IP addresses as evident from the history of several of those articles with similar edits from similar IP addresses. The fact that multiple edits are made to these pages, over half-a-dozen at a time in some cases, makes rollback a much easier method of undoing these unconstructive edits.
• These edits are all removals of unsourced information or simply unconstructive edits.

I hope that covers it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If any user wishes to revert such edits, they should use "undo" and provide an edit summary, and for reverting multiple edits should go back to and revision they are happy with and provide the edit summary a press "save this page". That you didn't do. Instead, you used rollback because you feel it was "easier", which is highly unjust of a rollback. You have been warned about previous rollbacks multiple times, but you continue to make such rollbacks, but on a smaller scale. Had you actually provided an edit summary, there would be no problems unless a consensus opposed your changes. I provided this evidence strictly for lacking an edit summary and using rollback. —Mythdon t/c 02:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until this case, you have been the only user in the entirety of Wikipedia who has felt the need to reprimand me on the use of rollback in these cases, only because you have these pages watchlisted as I do. These are completely within

WP:ROLLBACK which says it is "a fast method of undoing blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense". These are blatantly unproductive edits, even without being neither vandalism nor nonsense.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

It doesn't matter when who felt the need to reprimand. There are reprimands as of now, and that's all the matters. These changes are not blatantly unproductive, and even if unproductive should be reverted with an edit summary. Misuse of the tool can lead to its revocation as mentioned in the guideline linked, last time I checked. —Mythdon t/c 02:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The

WP:ROLLBACK policy was written when there was an update to the software to allow Javascript rollback to be used by any user. Rollback cannot be revoked on administrative accounts except through a removal of all tools. And you, as usual, are the only user to see these edits as not "blatantly unproductive".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

This rollback is the worst rollback I have seen recently from you. It seems to be merely a content dispute. Do I find a need for such a page? No. But regardless, you should have provided an edit summary, and if you can't do that, don't do anything about it. Rollback does not allow editors to provide an edit summary, which is why the tool is so sensitive to abuse and misuse. This is horrible conduct from you, and you continue to ignore the wishes of me and Tiptoety regarding this issue. Now, please start providing edit summaries for such edits more often than you already do. —Mythdon t/c 02:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is the revert of a cut-paste move by the editor I describe in very explicit detail in my first bullet point in this evidence analysis. First of all, such

moves are harmful, and it was clear that it was the problem user I refer to. I'm not here to convince you about anything (as you state in your edit summary). This is my attempt at saying your additions of this pieces evidence are in no way indicative of abuse or should be considered as evidence by the committee.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

DougsTech seems to easily ignore mentioning the following: [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]. The abuse is only perceived by him, as even at the time I had at least seven other administrators who supported my actions and interactions with him.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was also this discussion I started on ANI during the incident that DougsTech has brought up.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Defending false accusation, as usual.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Accounts are not to be used as welcomebots." Who said it was a welcomebot? Who said it was a bot at all? Ryulong, thats who. He just doesn't like other editors to welcome people, as he has just recently attempted to stop another user from welcoming new users here. --DougsTech (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong did not tell the user to stop. He told the user to slow down, as in do less, don't do too much, etc. —Mythdon t/c 04:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I do not have logs, but I was party to a group of individuals recently investigating DougsTech's contribs over IRC. I can provide names in private, but I can confirm that DougsTech ran into some problems while using huggle, twinkle, etc. He also started using it immediately, which raised a few eyebrows. This is not to say that Ryulong is right, but, on retrospect, many people that were looking through the contribs alongside of me found the rollback/script use suspicious in general and possibly problematic. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It's inappropriate to block users without giving them a message, but in fairness the user will receive a notice the next time they try to edit saying that they were blocked, and copying the block log summary so that they can see it. Trust me, I know. ;-o Soberknight (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Policy does not require notification on the talk page, only a clear and specific block message. The preformed block reasons used in all of those examples are sufficient, and the automated block message tells them what they need to do to appeal. Administrators will frequently not bother to notify vandalism-only accounts, as it is a waste of their time and blatantly obvious what the block was for anyway. It's also very likely that Ryulong (or any other administrator) intended to leave a note, but was either distracted or otherwise called away. None of the examples provided demonstrate that such a notification was necessary, nor that failing to leave one was the result of some deliberate decision.

a/c) 22:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The

blocking policy states that administrators should notify editors of their block. I don't know if you were aware of that, but you should reconsider as to whether or not to keep that viewpoint (or maybe interpretation). —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

This is an issue of semantics, I believe. "Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason which indicates why a user was blocked." "Administrators should also notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page unless they have a good reason not to." JPG-GR (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no valid reason as to why Ryulong didn't leave the users a message informing them of their block. It is better to know immediately and know the valid explanation than to know later and wait. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since he's not required to, it's not really necessary for you to "see any valid reason." JPG-GR (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is required to provide notification of blocks as that is a policy. It says he should notify them of their blocks. You may not get the point I am trying to bring out, but I am sorry that it is how it is. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misunderstanding the use of the word "should" - it is something someone ought to do, not something they have to do. I should drink less soda, but I am not required to do so. Should he have notified the users of their well-earned blocks? Possibly. Is he required to do so? No. JPG-GR (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. "Should" means it'd be a good idea, but it's not a big deal if you don't. Additionally, you may not be aware but when a blocked user tries to edit they are greeted with a

a/c) 01:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

(de-indent) How is your repeated posting on Ryulong's talk page about misuse of rollback supposed to help your case? JPG-GR (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I can confirm to ArbCom that Ryulong has indeed been warned about the misuse. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TennisExpert, where exactly are you going with the recall thing? Ryulong has violated no policy or even any guidelines by removing himself from the category. He gave a clear reason for wishing to remove himself from the category, and it's frankly none of your business why he would do so anyway. This has nothing to do with him mishandling his position as an administrator, which I believe is the intended focus of this case?

That is your opinion, which I do not share. The recall stuff is a good example of his disrespect of the Wikipedia community. I'm sure others will post additional examples. The arbitration committee should rule on the exact factual situation I've cited so that future RFA statements like "Please vote for me because I promise to be subject to recall and any doubts you have now about my fitness to be administrator can be dealt with through the recall procedure" can be given the weight (or lack thereof) they deserve. Finally, I believe that his promises 18 months ago to reform are relevant to this arbitration because he actually has not reformed. Those who were inclined to give him a second or third chance should rethink their positions in light of those broken promises. Tennis expert (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Election promise - "They have long been a central element of elections and remain so today. Election promises are also notable for often being broken once a politician is in office." JPG-GR (talk) 05:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your point is, but this obviously wasn't a political election. Tennis expert (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on how you look at it. JPG-GR (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a formatting note that the parties don't need to sign their signature in the evidence sections, it is assumed all comments in their section are made by them and is best presented in a report style format, not a threaded style format. MBisanz ^talk 06:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, the /Evidence page is meant to show a useful presentation of facts about events. If there are many repetitive instances of a behavior, showing a representative sample is usually better than listing all of the instances. MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of May 2, 2009 from MBisanz

22:27 Ryulong hey

22:27 Ryulong could you send me the logs where I asked you to block Mythdon that I cannot remember asking?

22:34 MBisanz i don't log

22:37 Ryulong FayssalF said that I asked that you block Mythdon at the beginning of April

22:38 Ryulong I can't remember it

22:38 MBisanz you've asked me to block several people, including mythdon

22:38 MBisanz remember user:X and user:Y?

22:38 MBisanz and several IPs

22:38 Ryulong well, yes, but I don't remember asking recently for Mythdon

22:39 MBisanz it was a month ago at the beginning of april

22:40 Ryulong I know I've asked but not any of those specific names

22:40 Ryulong Well, Mythdon yes, but not since the case started

22:42 Ryulong And I remember the whole user:Y thing now and that was last year

22:43 Ryulong but user:X?

22:43 MBisanz and i was keeping quiet for a while, but then other administrators started complaining that you were asking them to block people as well

22:43 MBisanz and it was getting quit burdensome on me

22:43 MBisanz so i figured it was better to recuse myself from the case

22:44 Ryulong kay

Evidence from Risker

IRC conversation between Risker and Ryulong, initiated by Ryulong, on 2009-02-26 (all times UTC)

-02-26 06:31:42] [INFO] Now logging to <file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/All%20Users/IRC%20logs/freenode/users/Ryulong.2009-02-26.log>.

[2009-02-26 06:31:42] [INFO] Query view for ``Ryulong opened.

[2009-02-26 06:31:42] <Ryulong> hi there

[2009-02-26 06:31:43] === Ryulong <n=ryulong6@wikimedia/Ryulong> ``Ryulong

[2009-02-26 06:31:43] === Ryulong: member of #wikipedia-en-admins and +#cvn-wp-en

[2009-02-26 06:31:43] === Ryulong: attached to irc.freenode.net ``http://freenode.net/

[2009-02-26 06:31:43] === Ryulong is identified to services

[2009-02-26 06:31:43] === Ryulong is signed on as account Ryulong

[2009-02-26 06:31:43] --- End of WHOIS information for Ryulong.

[2009-02-26 06:32:56] <Risker> hey there Ryulong

[2009-02-26 06:33:04] <Ryulong> quick question

[2009-02-26 06:33:06] <Ryulong> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:TM

[2009-02-26 06:33:15] <Ryulong> does the third bullet point there forbid page titles such as "GReeeeN"?

[2009-02-26 06:34:22] <Risker> hasn't this already been discussed ad nauseum? Even I remember seeing this before

[2009-02-26 06:35:05] <Ryulong> I'm not sure

[2009-02-26 06:35:25] <Ryulong> because it just got moved back and I found the page at "Greeeen" where I EXTREMELY disagree with that placement

[2009-02-26 06:35:43] <Risker> was there a move discussion?

[2009-02-26 06:36:13] <Ryulong> before I moved it before checking the talk page after my latest move back to "GReeeeN"

[2009-02-26 06:36:26] <Ryulong> it was requested, and then two people supported it without any other input

[2009-02-26 06:36:45] <Risker> three supports no oppose?

[2009-02-26 06:36:53] <Ryulong> I suppose so

[2009-02-26 06:37:10] <Risker> I'd say make your case on the page

[2009-02-26 06:37:22] <Ryulong> I've moved it back and then made a new thread

[2009-02-26 06:37:45] <Ryulong> saying it should be at "GReeeeN" because the MOS is just there to prevent page titles like KISS or TIME

[2009-02-26 06:38:30] <Risker> you know, I'm becoming allergic to the initials "MOS"... :-)

[2009-02-26 06:39:29] <Risker> our manual of style is bigger than almost any other I have ever seen, and I've worked with several over the years

[2009-02-26 06:41:03] <Ryulong> could you move protect GReeeeN plz :3

[2009-02-26 06:41:15] <Risker> nope

[2009-02-26 06:41:20] <Ryulong> :(

[2009-02-26 06:41:21] <Risker> no warring over it

[2009-02-26 06:41:44] <Ryulong> fine

[2009-02-26 06:42:32] <Risker> listen...one of the things about being on arbcom is that if I make a potentially controversial admin action, it has to be something I can fully and completely back

[2009-02-26 06:42:46] <Risker> this isn't at that level

[2009-02-26 06:42:46] <Ryulong> damn

[2009-02-26 06:42:49] <Ryulong> I forgot you did that

[2009-02-26 06:43:09] <Risker> lol!

[2009-02-26 06:43:27] <Risker> yes, I went slightly mad in November and December and am paying for it now

[2009-02-26 06:44:12] <Ryulong> I see