Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

Carcharoth
Casliber
Cool Hand Luke
FayssalF
FloNight
Jayvdb
Kirill Lokshin
Rlevse
Roger Davies
Sam Blacketer
Stephen Bain
Vassyana
Wizardman

Inactive:

Coren

Recused:

Newyorkbrad
Risker

-KnightLago (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recused

I have elected to recuse on this case, and will not be participating in the formulation or discussion of any proposed decision. Risker (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I shall also be recusing, as a clerk, from this case. MBisanz ^talk 20:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also recuse myself from sitting in this case, for the reasons discussed on the Workshop talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

I made a few edits to the remedies, and wanted to leave a note here for any clerk/arbitrator to verify that these edits were okay. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy 4 (A)

The first sentence of Remedy 4 (A) does not seem to make any sense and needs rewording - "He is urged to find a mentor within a month of the closure of this case are are free to get a mentor of their choice". Davewild (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FoF 6 "Ryulong misusing rollback"

After looking through Ryulong's block log, I do not see any blocked placed on his account be abusing rollback. Maybe this should be corrected. Tiptoety ^talk 20:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed by bainer. Thanks for pointing it out. FloNight ♥♥♥ 10:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement #1

I consider losing the rollback bit as a lesser sanction than blocking. If you lose the rollback function, you don't lose the ability to revert, you just revert slower. If you are blocked, you lose the ability to revert, edit, discuss, etc. Three blocks escalating to losing rollback seems to me like a rather backwards enforcement. If a sanction like this is needed, removing the rollback function should be a first, rather than last, resort. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since rollback can't be removed from an admin, it's also functionally redundant unless he is desysopped. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy 4(C)

The way this is worded ("their" as opposed to "his" in previous paragraphs) suggests that the authorization of the warned user's mentor is required to give a warning, and is otiose. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blanket question

I know that it might just be my feelings that given my behavioral changes during the second RFC and this case that I am opposed to proposed remedy 1, but seeing as (currently) the only proposed findings of facts that are currently being supported by the arbitration committee that support this remedy are the ones concerning my off-Wikipedia activities, why would it still be considered as a possible remedy when the (current) majority of the arbitration committee does not support the findings that would support its usage?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're asking why remedy 1 is passing even though it's apparently based on a finding that is opposed. (Correct me if I'm wrong; your question doesn't parse well.)

The committee appears deeply troubled by your off-site behavior, and because we apparently have concerns about your admin conduct. Finding 4 is being opposed—but only because some arbitrators object to the language employed in that finding. Most of the oppose votes seem to agree that some of your blocks are problematic. Cool Hand Luke 06:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was saying that it was based on several findings that are opposed, and based solely on actions that I had taken via off-site methods of communication that I had not done at all in a while. I've only asked when I've become involved to a degree that I feel I need help getting out. And I am positive that I had not asked to block Mythdon during the case or the RFC. All I asked to MBisanz was that if he could contact Mythdon as a clerk to ask him to stop updating the evidence page on a daily basis with his criticisms of my use of rollback. And I took no actions regarding the knowledge of Mythdon's account on YouTube. He went out of his way to contact me. And the whole incident was blown out of proportion with MBisanz's initial accusal that I was the one behind the IP. Why should I be punished (that's what the case has become) for that?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some changes, updates and additions to the FoFs. Please have a look again. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Mythdon restricted and placed under mentorship"

I have a few more questions regarding this proposal.

If I were to suddenly become inactive while the mentorship applies, would there be a motion to restart or pause the time of the mentorship? Let's just say that I become inactive following the ruling at anytime until a certain period of time has passed, would there be a motion to pause or restart the time?
If I were to violate the mentorship, after the Arbitration Enforcement block is over, would the mentorship restart or pause during the block? Would there be any motions to do that?

Thanks. —Mythdon t/c 18:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a btw for arbs on this case, some other questions have been raised by Mythdon and answered by FayssalF here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As with any mentorship, people may take breaks. We won't pause it of course unless you avoid the mentorship by taking a year long wiki-break. The point here is to see improvements in your inteactions with the community and a soft approach toward policies and guidelines. What ArbCom can do is to pass a motion to extend the mentorship if you fail to reach those objectives within a year.
I believe you mean 'violating the restrictions attached to the mentorship'. Well, in case that happens, mentorship will follow its course in a normal way. There'll be nothing to pause or restart. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship wording

Remedy 4 says: "...Mythdon is restricted from making edits such as unnecessary questions and abusive warnings to users' talk pages if not approved by their mentor." I would hope there is no situation where a mentor would approve "abusive warnings". I can have a good guess as to what this actually menas, but perhaps the wording needs to be tightened a little? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes happen, but if a mentor makes an incredibly foolish "approval", then either another mentor or probationary measure will need to be tried. Alternatively, a new remedy may be needed. When I read the proposal at workshop, I had no reservations with trying this experiment because it is the least restrictive approach available in such circumstances; but I think there are only so many safeguards that can be employed for this particular remedy. In any case, how would you propose the wording be tightened? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How it would be tightened would depend on precisely what the Arbs actually mean (I haven't read the full case so perhaps I'm off the mark, though I guess I'm in the same position as any random admin looking into an Arbcom enforcement request). As I would have thought no one should be posting "abusive warnings". I therefore assume there is something a bit more specific in mind as to what constitutes an abusive warning in this case, I would have thought it prudent to give some guidance as to what is meant. My own perspective is that if you leave things too open to too broad an interpretation, then you'll just get problems. Say Mythdon doesn't perceive the warning as abusive, but the mentor (or arbs) do within the bounds of what they consider "abusive", what then? Or is there an expectation that Mythdon will seek permission for posting any warning, lest it be perceived as abusive? I can't see either extreme as helpful, Mythdon shouldn't be being setup to fail, nor should he be being left chasing paranoia. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or is there an expectation that Mythdon will seek permission for posting any warning, lest it be perceived as abusive? Yes, it is exactly that. That is the reason behind mentorship... being able to avoid unnecessary questions and abusive warnings. Mentorship is a process and not a procedure. Mythdon may make mistakes but he's urged to consult with his mentor anytime he's not sure. Hopefully, after a year of mentorship, Mythdon would be able to avoid such mistakes. And remedies should be taken as a package which includes the WikiProject remedy.

That said, an abusive way would be leaving more than enough warnings at users' talk pages without even consulting with your mentor. In many cases, it is the mentor who may place the warnings but that would not help Mythdon enhance his communication ways. So, it is 'consult first and act later'. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False finding

In Finding of fact 15, it is stating "Mythdon has been posting notes at Ryulong's talk page about Ryulong's use of the rollback feature for more than a year". - Actually, that was only between around January and February 2009. In 2008, these were actually questions that Ryulong found not necessary, and again, the rollback notes were all in 2009. Please change this finding. Thanks. —Mythdon t/c 04:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by uninvolved observer

I stumbed across the request for arbitration on ryulong as I was browsing around Wikipedia. I have since read all of the sub-pages (quite a lot of information!) as well as the former "Requests for comment" and Ryulong's three "Requests for Administrator." Of this case and its history I can say as an outside viewer that it is obvious Ryulong will lose his administratorship when the Arb-committee makes its final decision. However, this final decision is still a few days off.

Ryulong should sieze the initiative here and resign from his administrator position. Then he should immediately thereafter (prior to the final decision by ArbCom), stand again for "Request for Administrator." Ryulong still obviously has strong community support and should the community re-approve Ryulong as an administrator before the ArbCom decision to de-admin him is finally made, the Arb-Com's final order will be invalidated. Your thoughts please. Gerhardt Lammers (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about your views towards the dispute concerning me? This case is about me too. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually dont think you (Mythdon) did much of anything wrong but I think this Request for Arbitration has beomce about Ryulong's past history than his interactions with you. My apologies if I am wrong to think this? Gerhardt Lammers (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement #2

Now that I've taken another look at it, I feel it's extremely draconian seeing as Mythdon is the only user (in good standing) who I am not on good terms with who I have any inkling of the identity of and this was because he forced himself on me through off-wiki discussion. This is yet another aspect of this case blown out of proportion from the edit that I did not make and could not have made nor have any hand in making on Mythdon's talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care that you looked at my Youtube account, nor do I care that you had an IRC conversation with MBisanz concerning it. The arbitrators seems to care though. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfecting the fine art of insignificant commentaries. --65.92.250.107 (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators care because they represent and respect the community practices. This is a collaborative project and we cannot allow things like that to happen just because you are the only user who doesn't care. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying I don't get the final say in regards to discussion about my Youtube account? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't repeat myself. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't asking you to repeat yourself. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policies via this Rfa

I don't think Arbcom should be changing Wikipedia polices via Rfas dealing with an individual user. The propsal on Wikiprojects and Ignore all Rules should be dealt with by the community, not a handful of people in an obscure area of Wikipedia. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 01:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're referring to the principles, there isn't any new policy (or even novel interpretation of existing policy) in either of those; they're merely routine applications of standing policy (WP:CANVASS and WP:CONSENSUS) to the scenario considered in this case. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Kirill, I don't believe we are bringing something new. It's merely an interpretation of the practices of IAR and an exploration of the principles surrounding WikiProjects --again, it is all about interpreting good practice and showing bad or questionable practice. And everything is still bound by the five pillars. Unless there's a specific objection to one of those Principles I don't believe we are overriding the community voice here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Mythdon admonished"

I think that parts of this remedy should be totally up to Ryulong. The parts I am referring to are in bold:

"Mythdon is admonished for their harassing behavior on and off-wiki and directed to refrain from contacting Ryulong off-wiki and seeking Ryulong's identity on and off-wiki. 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, then he may be sanctioned in accordance with the enforcement provisions."

I am not saying the whole restriction should be removed, but only the parts referring to contacting Ryulong off-wiki and things like that. I think that shall be under Ryulong's discretion and he should be the one saying whether or not I can contact him off-wiki. I think the Arbitration Committee should not decide on this, unless Ryulong asks the committee to decide or does not care what is decided. If I were to appeal this proposed restriction at any time after it passes, I believe it would be necessary and kind to ask Ryulong if I could appeal it if it were to pass. I do not know Ryulong's current stance on the proposal, so I would like to hear from him regarding his stance. Ryulong, please voice your stance. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. Either you leave him alone, or you'll find yourself banned from the project. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I truly think it should be up to him in regards to the highlighted parts of the restriction. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you seem to be showing a strong load of anger here in a manner of "enough is enough!". —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong 'has thought that that is exactly something the arbitration committee has the power to enforce'. And my response was 'of course!'. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - And please assume good faith towards Kirill; it seems that he has been aware of Ryulong's opinion while you haven't. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the comment as actually voicing one's own opinion. I was aware of those comments for more than a week. I am still waiting for an opinion to be voiced. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to keep waiting. I've already got Ryulong's opinion as shown above and I am done. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're done with this conversation, I'm done too. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mythdon, your interpretation of "enough" is quite fanciful - he was simply telling you to stop (engaging in the behaviour that led to this sort of remedy, or you will be sanctioned); it has nothing to do with anger, and has everything to do with your problematic interpretation of words on-wiki. (For the record, I agree with Wizardman's addendum on remedy 4D, and clearly, I'm not the only one). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FoF #6

I have not been blocked for any period of time in two years, and that last time was because someone got a hold of an administrator's account and blocked me for some reason.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my clarification: I have seen his block log, and I have to agree with him totally. He has never been blocked for misusing rollback, and has not been blocked since 2007. The claim that he was blocked on March 4 is false, period. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two blocks, according to Ryulong's block log: the first was done on July 29, 2006 by Cyde but was immediately reversed by PilotGuy as a mistake; and the other was on May 7, 2007 during the admin account hijackings at the time, and was immediately reversed. Neither are Ryulong's fault, don't have anything to do with rollback, were at least two years ago, and didn't take place during March of any year. Acalamari 01:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good summary of the block log, and good clarification. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts of long-term vandals/problem users being misconstrued as content disputes

Throughout the case, there have been many reverts that I have made to rollback edits made by either long-term vandals in the topic area that I edit or simply problem users who hop from IP to IP and do not respond to messages. I hope to give examples.

Edits such as the following [1] [2] [3] I attribute to a user I simply refer to as the "Saban troll". This individual is someone based in Canada (based on WHOIS info), who previously only made edits such as this and this to various articles until they were indefinitely semi-protected (or simply are higher traffic and easier to catch). There were several instances of Tiptoety picking out my reverts of this individual as being rollbacks in a content dispute. I have never been able to prevent this individual from further editing Wikipedia, due to the nature of the Canadian ISPs that he uses as well as the ISP's general behavior in regards to replying to abuse reports.
Edits such as this belong to a user who has for some reason made it his mission to eliminate nicknames, redlinks, or add unverified information to List of Power Rangers characters and List of Power Rangers for nearly a year, all from IPs in 41.x.x.x.
118.136.10.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been causing minor problems throughout the beginning of its edits, but hasn't really done anything to merit any sort of block, most of which has been adding unverified information to articles, or placing content into articles that has been left out (using the  tags) because it is currently unverified. I've left messages on the IP's talk page, but it does not appear the IP user has read them.

I just want to make these clarifications, as I will likely be undoing, reverting, rolling back, etc. edits by these individuals in the future for being blatantly unconstructive to articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you should not be using rollback to revert good faith edits simple because you do not agree with them. In some of these instances that you cite, the proper response is to remove the edit with an edit summary, or to start a discussion on the article talk page. Reverting edits without discussion is to be used for vandalism not content disputes. You need to leave this case with a clear understanding of this point. FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good way to put him in his place. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finding #6.1

In Finding #6.1, it uses this diff as an example of Ryulong misusing rollback. The diff in question is not a rollback, but an undo. I am requesting a fix to the finding. The edit is an undo, not a rollback. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not satisfied with the ordering of this finding. It appears as if ArbCom is suddenly referring to the 2nd RfC, and then at 11, it finally decides to give background about the 2nd RfC, and then in the next finding, we're jumping to what's happening during this case. I don't think reference to the second RfC should be made until after Fof 11.

This could be resolved by keeping only the first sentence as 6.1. Then Fof 11A (or a new Fof 12) could have the title "Ryulong's continued misuse of rollback", which would comprise of this revised second sentence: "Although Ryulong was criticised during his second request for comment for his misuse of rollback (as outlined here), Ryulong continued misusing rollback in this way since then (for example see [4], [5], [6], [7])." Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point that the ordering is a bit awkward, but don't see that this affects the overall correctness of the decision. The ordering is not a reason to hold up the closing of this case by fiddling with it at this late stage. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with John. The order of the case findings is less important than having findings supported by evidence that support the sanctions. I think we do in this case, so closing the case now is fine. FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Not a reason to hold up the closing"? Perhaps that ought to have been considered before making this very different proposal at such a late stage. The objections/concerns were raised by arbs well in-advance, and although this proposal may satisfy their concerns, its very nature has the potential to raise new ones in the absence of receiving input from users outside of ArbCom. More thought should have been given to it. That said, I suppose this is obviously not the first occasion where I'm finding problems because input outside of ArbCom could not be put forward earlier.

Certainly the new format of case has its benefits, and it was proposed by the community so as to remedy some of the underlying issues, including the needless bureaucracy over insignificant nonsense (John should have an idea of what I'm referring to, based on my response earlier). For the overall bulk of the case, this new format has been effective, and has worked (I will give individual credit where it is due, at the end). Yet, it's a pity that some arbitrators (even through its delegates) are reverting to its old ways towards the end, because this case could have been perfect on this side of things. Sure FloNight, it isn't as important as another issue, but that doesn't make it a non-issue, nor was this raised in comparison to that other issue. Again, in the end, it is my belief that some members of the Committee did not make the extra effort they should have to effectively fix that issue - I do not accept the suggested excuse that it is because they're unable to within the time constraints, in light of the fact it took nearly no time enacting the proposal to begin with. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had had 3 different orderings in mind and it seems that I decided to use the one that separates Ryulong's FoFs from those of Mythdon's while respecting choronological events. Ryulong misusing rollback has lasted until very recently and that is what produced this situation. But again, would this point affect the remedies? No. You are against bureaucracy so why would this point be so important? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be suggesting that chronology/ordering is only used for bureaucratic reasons - is that correct? I do hope not. If we used an approach where we just listed even a few facts in very random order, without respect to chronology, there would be no change to the outcome, and the case could be cut down by quite a number of days. Yet, why take the time, even in early stages, to make sure it is chronologically accurate (as far as reasonable)? Even you admit to thinking over 3 alternatives. There are a number of reasons this is needed, but I'll stick to the 2 most important(imo). Firstly, to make it difficult to miss issues when drafters are tracing the dispute. The second reason (which is more relevant here) is elaborated in the next para.

Although cases are not precedents, uninvolved people should be able to navigate or go through a past case or an aspect of that case - they should be able to familiarise themselves with a dispute in a timely manner, without getting lost in the Fofs and its chronological problems, or be distracted by language issues. To achieve both objectives (in this case, the latter), it needs to be logical - this comes back to the point of ordering, wording, wording, and ordering. If someone who has no idea about this case needs to scroll up and down Fofs repeatedly to ensure they collected all comments on one aspect (eg; the 2nd RfC in this case) because that aspect was unnecessarily scattered, then the objective is, in full or in part, not being met. Why was it not met it in this case? Obviously, this thread is evidence that adequate feedback was given even before the later votes to close. Again, I think some members of the Committee did not make the extra effort they should have to effectively fix that issue - I do not accept the suggested excuse that it is because of inability to within the time constraints, in light of the fact it took nearly no time enacting the proposal to begin with. I don't mind continuing this discussion elsewhere if it means ways can be found so that this doesn't recur in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal #6.1 appears where it does in the order because it's an alternative to #6, not a new proposal. It mentions the RFC as a substitute for the original wording mentioning a non-existent block. --bainer (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing why Fof 6.1 was proposed, and my suggested resolution doesn't remove the first sentence for the reasons you've stated. But for the reasons I've stated above, I still think the second sentence needs to be separated out as if it's a new proposal (Fof 12), or one that is attached to the already existing second RfC proposal (Fof 11A). Does that make sense? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]