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

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

I've made a slight copyedit [1] given your concern, but I've left the diff as is. That was a case of legitimate usage of rollback (particularly given that Arrowned left a message on the IP's talk page). Whether you familiarised yourself with the context of the situation (and reviewed the relevant part of rollback policy) is something that others can consider for themselves. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

]

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

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

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

]

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

Which in your opinion is a bigger issue: vandalism, unconstructive edits and nonsense that damage the quality of this encyclopedia, or questioning people about how they've gone about effectively protected the quality of the encyclopedia? Do you have statistics to back up your view? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I give these editors a chance to explain their actions. Therefore, everything is fine and good. These questions regarding their rollbacks are needed. —Mythdon t/c 16:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to answer my straightforward question, then don't, or state that you won't - I only wanted an answer; I didn't want to know your personal view about something quite different as it is unhelpful. If this is the way you generally approach questions that are posed to you on Wikipedia, then I appreciate Hersfold's concerns and can plainly understand why Ryulong has grown impatient with you - I have a notably low tolerance for this sort of behaviour. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many RC editors do cause problems, and that includes rollbackers. To suggest that no rollbackers or the rest act problematically is a denial of many of the incidents on ANI and AN for the past couple months. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, would you like to answer the questions I'd posed to Mythdon? But where are your stats? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your above statement has nothing to do with my statement, and will thus be ignored as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

What are your comments on the evidence Ryulong has presented under the header "Ryulong and Mythdon"? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that it is the year long story between me and him. On many occasions, me and him fail to agree on the issues raised on talk pages. As time has went by, we had gotten slowly and gradually more aggressive towards eachother until recently. Me and him, while we do do get into long term disputes about content, I would like to say that these discussions are beneficial, especially if edit warring is absent. We have continually failed to agree, but despite this, discussion is never redundant. It is actually helpful with agreement or no agreement. I feel it is necessary to discuss. I would like to quote something mentioned by Ryulong during this case as seen here "Mythdon and I edit in the same topic area and on the chance that we disagree about content, it might not be beneficial if we were not allowed to discuss. However, when I do talk to him about items, it is extremely difficult for us to converse on the same level and this has what made me lose my patience with him, as several other editors have told me in their own experiences.". —Mythdon t/c 15:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note the word 'might' in Ryulong's quote, which isn't very definite. In any case, how is Ryulong "an editor who should be dealt with by all means", given that your above comment suggests otherwise? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is things like desysopping, blocking, restricted in use of revert privileges, etc. There is no need to block discussion between me and him all because the same conclusion is usually met. I'm even wondering if these remedies will lead Ryulong to retirement from Wikipedia, as I think they would be too strict for him to put on his shoulders. He, along with me are the two most active editors of the subject area. Where he adds content, I oversee it. —Mythdon t/c 15:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need to speculate on his retirement when he can speak for himself on that particular issue. I've noted (with a diff earlier) that Ryulong has made positive contributions outside of those content areas; I hope he will continue to do so, irrespective of what is to become of the interactions between you both. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a) Principles are jointly presented by almost most of the participants which is fine.

b) FoFs are mostly presented by user:Hersfold and user:Ncmvocalist and more FoFs related to user:Ryulong are missing.

c) Remedies are jointly presented by almost most of the paricipants which is fine. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I told all other participants who are jointly presenting these proposals, I was unable to complete all the proposals I wanted to. However, I will also note this - I don't propose findings saying "no actionable evidence on this charge". Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks Ncmvocalist. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]