User talk:Ryulong/Archive 93

Archive 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

Archive 93

Archive 94

Archive 95

→

Archive 100

My bad

My bad for deleting the discussion. It had nothing to do with administrators, but rather something he could have easily resolved if he had read my messages that I have sent (he has also ignored questions in the original discussion). Also could you please comment on my request to have this user blocked? If you don't know my reasons why see my comments above it. AcidSnow (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You should just let the thread get archived. I do not wish to be invovled any further.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to respond and thanks for at least responding to this message, I have closed the discussion instead of deleting it. Thanks anyways, AcidSnow (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Revering my edits?

Why should my edits be reverted? I added the categories originally and they stood for a long while, and Ford reverted my edits. I think his reverts should have to wait until there is consensus. Mathewignash (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

They were added by a problematic user who is under discussion at ANI for making shitty "Fictional X" categories.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Censored Scribe

Would you guys stop endlessly edit warring all over my watchlist? --Niemti (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

How many scifi pages do you have on your watchlist? Also, WP:ANI#CensoredScribe's categories.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

SPI

Hi, no one seems to have formally notified you of an attack on you at ANI by an obvious sock - not that you need notifying, it boomeranged straight to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rka001. I'm 99% sure you'll have seen it at ANI by scrolling down from above, but just for the 1% chance you hadn't seen it thought someone should beep you. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I wake up on my sick day to this garbage.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was better someone beeped you all the same. It is evidently garbage. Get better soon. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

My sleep schedule's just been out of whack. Fixing it tonight.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This is nonsense

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ryulong (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I should not be blocked for following a policy (WP:BAN) just because someone doesn't like his talk page to be edited by another user.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The issue here isn't whether the other party is banned or not; the issue is that you have reacted to this situation with dogged battleground attitudes, even when other users have asked you to step back. When the ANI discussing this didn't seem to be going your way, you came on IRC to request an administrator to create an edit filter that would do your reverting for you, which is a pretty clear violation of a long-term behavior ban imposed on you by Arbcom. If this had come down as an AE block in response to that, the damage would probably have been substantially more than 24 hours. The upshot here is that you need to step back. Way back. Even if you are 100% positive that you're right, it doesn't mean you can run roughshod over everyone else in pursuit of what you think is right. I'm not seeing any sign in this unblock request or in IRC discussion with you that you understand that. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

As an additional note, I've had someone skilled in edit filter creation to create a filter that would prevent the sockpuppets from commenting on not just X96lee15's user talk page, and if anything it will improve the site's atmosphere for the banned user's primary target. If it is implimented, I will never have to go to X96lee15's user talk again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

To WP:ANI: It's not WP:DENY if he reverts me and restores the content. And we should not be letting a user talk page turn into a honeypot because that user gets upset over other people enforcing the banning policy.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know sending an email to an ISP to report an abusive user who I did not know had a name on site could be construed as seeking out their identity. What BS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@SummerPhD: You're missing a lot of other categories that CensoredScribe is suddenly deciding qualifies on several articles. Like his sudden obsession with Category:Size change in fiction and his recent creations of Category:Fictional giantesses and Category:Giantesses in fiction.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no intention of becoming a proxy for either side in this mess. Yes, I disagree with a number of categories @CensoredScribe: has created and/or added to various articles and I am editing as I feel is appropriate. If you have concerns about material I am leaving alone, feel free to address those issues in 3 days. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not waiting 3 days. My current block regarding CensoredScribe is completely inappropriate and this is from the block two days ago, which was also complete bull. SummerPhD, CensoredScribe has been banned from making any new categories or adding categories to pages without discussing either act first. My attempts to get that done should not have resulted in this current 3 day block.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

If your block is lifted, then you will be able to address the issues sooner. Either way, I am not -- and do not intent to become -- part of this mess. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

Several editors advised you an ANI that you were going about things the wrong way and at least two admins advised you that a block was likely if you carried on reverting. Whether supported by policy or not continuing to do those talk page reverts, such as this while discussion is ongoing is disruptive and bordering on harassment. Hence I have blocked you for 24 hours. Dpmuk (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

And per my unblock request above I disagree.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Can't you just pick the most outrageous categories, create the category page, and send them to WP:CFD? You could show better that he doesn't have consensus. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You are aware my block doesn't have to do with the categories right? And CFD seems like it fucking takes forever and never comes out with a result in time.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh wait are you suggesting I violate WP:POINT?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No, no. I am only suggesting that you could make a few CFDs to nuke the new categories (maybe nominate them in groups). When they are closed as delete, you will have a very strong argument that consensus is on your side. More people will listen to you. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This is mitigated by the fact that CensoredScribe has since been banned from creating new categories or adding them to particular pages.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Category:Fictional olympic medalists

Hello Ryulong. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Category:Fictional olympic medalists, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Category is not empty. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It was empty when I tagged it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing disruption block

The ongoing disruption between CensoredScribe and Ryulong is bidirectional and both are symmetrically blocked for 72 hours for continuing it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? I removed a malformed CFD and I get blocked for it?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

{{Unblock|I was doing my best to clean up after a user who refused to discuss anything and I attempted every single method of attempting to get him to stop making poorly thought out categories, stop him from adding malformed project templates into categories, and he kept making new WP:boomerang worthy ANI threads to try to get me in trouble (often at the urging of a banned user's sockpuppet) despite one thread already about him. I should not be blocked because another user went WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT for the past several days and that other user is the one the community decided has been disruptive to where he is now banned from the very thing I was trying to clean up. The only complaints about my behavior in this debacle were from the other user, not one from anyone in the community.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)}}

Quick comment - This was for the totality of ongoing behavior after a week's worth of disruption on ANI. Not the one CFD action. I do invite review on ANI (sob... another section...) if admins want to discuss it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

CensoredScribe kept starting up new threads whenever I reverted his latest new category despite the fact the ban discussions were ongoing so I kept having to tack them onto the original thread that he, again, made about me but that boomeranged against him before I even made my first comment. And most of the other ANI stuff was trying to get another long indefblocked user officially banned (hasn't happened yet) but then that devolved into the stuff I was blocked for yesterday. I didn't mean to have two threads where I was a main participant up all week.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I endorse both blocks. Ryulong, you were not "doing your best to clean up" after CensoredScribe so much as indiscriminately undoing practically every category-related edit he made, irrespective of their merits. In doing so you reverted a number of plausibly or even undebatably useful edits, which (contrary to your assertion) generated criticism or complaints from uninvolved editors and unnecessarily inflamed tensions with CensoredScribe. Besides this, you have allowed yourself to be rather spectacularly trolled by a banned user who exploited your obsession with CensoredScribe, and CensoredScribe's naïveté and competence issues, by egging him on. Please take the 72 hours to cool off and consider a more measured response to the disruptive aspects of CensoredScribe's editing. (Hopefully none will be needed if he complies with the topic ban.) —Psychonaut (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It was not indiscriminate. Category edits are just all CensoredScribe has been doing for the past week and there have been maybe all of 2 categories he has created that has some possible utility. The majority of the commentary had been directed towards CensoredScribe's actions and I've had all of like three people say I was wrong and you were one of them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, The Bushranger don't validate a sockpuppet's thread through this block.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

If this is also because of the Wiki-star/X96lee15 nonsense, why have I been punished, again? That was more or less resolved. And why should I be punished for having two threads where I was a participant on ANI throughout the week? That's an unprecedented act. This block prevents nothing now that I'm "banned" from X96lee15's talk page (I doubt this has any merit) and that CensoredScribe has been topic banned from category creation, and all this block is is punitive. I have no drama to be involved with anymore. I should not be blocked for three days.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

And how can you even endorse the block, Psychonaut? You don't have admin rights.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

@Liz: I'm male. Don't use "his/her".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no real outlet to voice my opinions on the current ANI thread but here.

• Liz, Ravensfire: I have no reason to edit war with CensoredScribe anymore because he has been topic banned from making any new categories or adding categories to pages without discussion. There is no purpose in producing a bilateral interaction ban because I will have no need to have to watch CensoredScribe anymore because he is now under restrictions that I sought to put him in in the first place. And there was a massive thread on ANI where I was doing nothing but trying to discuss the issue. CensoredScribe ignored any of the issues raised by myself and at least 20 other users on his edits and kept going forward. I should not have been blocked because another user is too incompetent to participate on this website, and I should not be further restricted in regards to this one user because he has the restrictions on him already in place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• And Liz, your interpretation of my message to you on your talk page is still flawed. I did not judge accounts to be sockpuppets. They made it very clear that they were. And I did not say you were connected to a banned editor. I said that by restoring the content you are inherently allowing a banned editor to contribute.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• And I don't "believe" certain users are sockpuppets or habitually disruptive. They blatantly are. I've been harassed by so many quacking ducks for the past month and we spent all week discussing how another user was disruptive.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

@TParis: They started the thread.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

@TParis: You got edit conflicted.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Does this say I should remain blocked because it means sockpuppets won't show up?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Lengthier unblock request

I have seen Drmies post at GWH's talk page and the recent comments at the ANI thread. In discussion with Fluffernutter the other day on IRC, he pointed out that my zeal in dealing with disputes I find myself diving into is problematic. I will act in a way that while I have all intents of helping and improving the project, their implimentation has clearly caused problems that has resulted in not only the 3 day block from yesterday and the 1 day block from earlier in the week, but also the various edit warring blocks over the past several years and indeed my desysopping in 2009. How I can work on fixing this, I'm not sure.

I should have heeded X96lee15's requests sooner. However, I still do not feel that effectively turning his user talk page into a honeypot was the best solution out of that debacle.

I did not mean for the thread on CensoredScribe to get out of control. But every time I signed on I saw some new category that he had created (usually within my watchlist) or had began to curate that was clearly inappropriate or inappropriately applied. Before I could attempt to bring up the issue on ANI, he would make a new thread before I could respond. The thread got way out of control (mostly due to CensoredScribe's new threads that had to be merged into the older ones), and perhaps my manner of speaking to him was problematic towards the end, but it was only because I had lost any and all patience in dealing with him. Now that he is under a community sanctioned ban, it is my hope that things will not repeat themselves. If they do, things will definitely not devolve into the 10 part ANI thread as they did this time around as the community at large now is aware of the problems he has caused. I hope he can learn from this experience.

Again and again the way I act on this site damages my standing within the community when all I have been trying to do is improve things. I'm clearly going about things in the wrong way. I simply do not know how to treat these disputes when they come up. I should have gone to ANI regarding the sockpuppetry and talk page posts earlier, but I had only made the connection to the older account this week. With CensoredScribe, I do not know if there could have been any other way to have made things gone smoother, because the only alternative to rolling back his billion edits to add new categories to pages would be to have sent every single creation of his to WP:CFD, which would have probably caused its own set of problems, but if that's necessary next time, I'll go down that road. And I'll have to bite my tongue when I see people opposing the intent and not hold a discussion as that always causes problems for me as well.

Every time I get blocked all I can focus on are the edits to articles I edit regularly that need some fixing up, and ideas for new pages, and that's all I intend on working on for several weeks. I should have kept to my practice of staying away from project pages unless absolutely necessary before and that's what I'll do for some time whenever this block ends.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Edits like this, for example.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@TParis: What do you mean "it's not at ANI"? I thought it was.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

typo. "Now"--v/r - TP 05:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Well I hope that this massive 4 paragraph thing I wrote gets noticed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

And the claims that I've violated my arbcom restrictions are a stretch. I sought out someone who could impliment an edit filter that per WP:BEANS I do not wish to divulge the details of on site, and administrators apparently do not have the inherent account rights to make edit filters because of some stupid bureaucracy. And calling my attempts to contact an ISP's abuse support on the IP addresses blatantly used to harass and sockpuppet is not "trying to find another editor's identity". That damn restriction should have never been put into place. Mythdon went out of his way to contact me and harass me off-site and I opened his profile there and simply revealing that fact to another editor in private should not have put this mark on my behavior. I have been contacted too many god damn times by editors on other websites and I can't call out their inappropriate behavior here because of that restriction. I've been outed offsite and nothing can be done about it here either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

If I was going to suggest one thing to you it's don't think you have to deal with everything yourself - that seems to be what's led to both of these blocks and at least one of your previous blocks. Try and get other editors involved. Wikipedia is not going to break if a sockpuppets comments stay up a bit longer or some bad categorisation stays around for a couple more days while you got more editors involved. Doing so is both more likely to make the problem editor listen and show that your actions are supported.

Although I stand by my block I was not going to block you for the categories issues but did not feel strong enough about it to oppose. Now you've made the above statement I would support an unblock but given the conversation at ANI I feel that's unlikely to occur.

I also agree that, from what has been made public, the claim you violated your arbcom restriction is a stretch. I think it was unwise to try to do it all off-wiki (although I accept some details might need to be) because it looked like trying to get what you wanted on the ‎X96lee15 talk page issue by the back door but if such a filter is possible with a very low false positive rate it seems a sensible idea.

I realise that as a blocking admin you may not want to hear this from me so feel free to revert if you want. Dpmuk (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Well I tried to do that with all the discussions on ANI, but nothing was progressing in either situation. And CensoredScribe's constant creation of new threads was only making matters worse.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Abaranger-title.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Abaranger-title.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

How the hell am I supposed to fix this while I'm blocked? Just fix the rationale because there's clearly only one article it's being used on.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks like a Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline template needs to be filled out and added to that page. I would be happy to copy and paste from here to the actual image page if you want to fill it out here, or tell me how to fill it out. Your rational in the description looks good, it probably just needs to be templated? CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you could fix this first while I work on the template?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I just took a stab at the template, let me know what you think.(It was less hard than I thought ) CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the source of the file has since changed to a copy of an episode from DVD. You should probably note that TV Asahi, Toei Company, and Bandai Visual own the copyrights to the image as well.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I would set the template as {{Non-free use rationale|Description = A screenshot of the title card of Bakuryū Sentai Abaranger, broadcast on TV Asahi and produced by Toei Company and Bandai Visual|Source = Screenshot was acquired from a DVD release of the TV series|Article = Bakuryū Sentai Abaranger|Portion = all|Low_resolution = yes|Purpose = Used for educational purposes in identification of the television show|Replaceability = no|other_information =}}—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I have to step away for a bit, but that looks good? CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you can probably remove the deletion tags as well.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I've also done a resize if you feel so inclined to upload it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Can't get to imgur on this connection, if I think of it when I change locations I can upload it. Removed deletion tag. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Note

This is interesting.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@KenYokai: Do not post this at all. There is nothing on that page that says ANYTHING about Go-Busters.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@J4lambert: No. No. No. There is nothing that says anything about a Japanese TV show on that news article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@KyoryuCrimson: You can't post that either. I need this block to end now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@KyoryuCrimson: You cannot say any of this. All of this violates WP:SYN and WP:NOR. There are no sources for Go-Busters' ratings. And there is no mention of Go-Busters or Kyoryuger in association with Dino Charge.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@KyoryuCrimson: Still no. THERE IS NO MENTION OF ANYTHING JAPANESE.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@Sb1990: Still no. That source only mentions "Power Rangers Dino Charge". It says nothing about Kyoryuger. Stop putting these things up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@Bigddan11: This statement is problematic because they're citing Tokusatsu Network which is not a reliable source.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@Areaseven: You still have to remove statements about Dino Charge from Super Sentai and Zyuden Sentai Kyoryuger as well as anything that mentions "Dino Charge" and "Kyoryuger" in the same sentence. Also someone added shit about Gokaiger on Power Rangers Megaforce using Tokusatsu Network via Anime News Network and that shit won't fly.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

What's up?

Specifically what is the issue? CensoredScribe (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You are topic banned from adding categories to pages without discussion and that's exactly what you did at Power Rangers, Ultraman, and several other pages.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Fine; I thought that was for new categories; I'll discuss it on the talk pages. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I am bringing up this behavior of yours at WP:ANI#CensoredScribe.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

CensoredScribe

I'm more sympathetic to the issues you are dealing with than my posts at ANI might suggest. I've glanced at the talk page of CensoredScribe, and I can understand the frustration. However, this appears to be an editor who has not yet grasped how things are done. I'd like to see a clear explanation of what is wrong, and if the editor persists, then it is time to consider expanding a ban.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought that the multiple threads did show that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong would you please actually discuss size change in power rangers and ultraman with me? I've added two categories for deletion; mansions in fiction and martial arts tournament films; I may be able to find more categories for deleting. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Just put Category:Power Rangers, Category:Super Sentai, and Category:Ultra Series into Category:Size change in fiction. I really dislike all these "Fictional X" categories in the first place because they're just trivial garbage invented by people like you who have a lot of time to think about these things.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thank you. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Tommy Oliver

Hey, why are you trying to remove the AfD for this page? I don't see anything improper about it, and the G8 you tagged it for is inappropriate. ₆an⁶sh₆ 07:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It was created by what appears to be a banned user's sockpuppet, if the two IPs' actions are anything to go by. It's not a valid debate (article has multiple references, subject had appeared on TV for 5 consecutive years and one other year as well as two feature films), it's malformed, and there's something suspicious going on.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand that, but if you let the IP's comments stay but explain why they're invalid instead of just removing them, there won't be edit warring and such going on, and people might respond better, you know? ₆an⁶sh₆ 07:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Why waste everyone's time when it's a banned user?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Because now they're probably going to go waste everyone's time anyways with some sort of report somewhere, or so they threaten. Anyhow, I'm going to stop watching this now, good luck. ₆an⁶sh₆ 07:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but the fact that they know this shit just proves my point that it's a sockpuppet of someone.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Ryūlóng, you don't get to unilaterally decide that an IP is a banned user, or that an AfD nomination isn't valid. Frankly, looking at the article, I'm half tempted to nominate it for AfD myself. It does nothing to establish the independent notability of this fictional character, and almost all of it is fancrufty plot summary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

See WP:DUCK. And just because the article is in a shit state does not mean the subject is not notable. As I stated, the fictional character was a main character on a television program for 6 seasons, 5 consecutive, and was featured in two films that were released to theaters. Also, I'd rather try to figure out some way to get a character list set up to get rid of these fancrufty pages but the multiple seasons (which were renamed) makes things difficult, and an IP sock is not helping things.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is nothing in WP:DUCK (which incidentally is an essay) that permits unilateral removal of an AfD nomination - even a malformed one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It does if the duck quacks like a banned editor, particularly when that editor's first edit was to revert me on an esoteric article page and then attempt to send an article I recently edited to AFD.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, as an essay, WP:DUCK permits nothing. Can you point to the policy which permits an unilateral removal of an AfD nomination, without even so much as an edit summary, followed by repeated blanking of complaints about your behaviour? It seems to me that you have appointed yourself judge, jury, and executioner here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that the fact that I've been harassed by a banned editor over the past 3 months makes me completely unable to determine when shits hits the fan.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

ani

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Recent_behavior_of_ryulong NE Ent 16:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

God damn DFZ/BCD socks.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

{{uw-3rr}}, List of Power Rangers Super Megaforce episodes (if you're claiming socks, you should be using edit summary at outlined at WP:3rr )NE Ent 03:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:AIV and the edits on List of Power Rangers Super Megaforce episodes

I saw the list of reports you left at WP:AIV. I see that there is a bit of back-and-forth on all the talk pages, but I'm a bit confused as to what you're trying to accomplish here? I went through all of the IPs' edits and the only ones that I could find in article space actually looked relatively unobjectionable, e.g. one.

I'll be honest and admit that I don't have the slightest idea whether or not any of this is relevant, but it seems like an expansion of the text that was already there. In any case, I'm not sure there's any vandalism here, but if you could provide me with a diff that would be wonderful. As it is, if it's just WP:SPI behavior then it is best to bring it up there. Cheers, Deville (Talk) 03:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@Deville: It's a banned user block evading so any edits he makes are to be reverted. The issue is at SPI currently but because he is currently hopping IPs and causing damage AIV is the proper venue. Also, you should reset the block on AS92813 (talk · contribs).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

A Game Boy for you!

	The Game Boy of Appreciation
	Thanks for all your maintenance on the Lists of Pokemon! It may just seem like cleanup, but it really makes a difference! Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 16:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Your AIV Report

Hey, please ensure that you are only reporting ongoing, obvious vandals to WP:AIV. This sort of report is probably not the right way to deal with people criticizing you. Thanks for your help. SQL^{Query me!} 05:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I am reporting block evasion. Is that not what AIV is for?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You might consider reading the giant green box on the page. SQL^{Query me!} 05:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well where do I seek out assistance with block evasion that will handle the case rapidly and is not backlogged for weeks?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

And please, I'm not reporting him because he's criticizing me. I'm reporting him because he's clearly evading the blocks placed on the four IP ranges dealt with by Materialscientist yesterday and the blocks on the accounts AS92813 and You Wont Win This Time.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI or WP:AN would both be more appropriate venues than Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism IMO. I get where you're coming from, but AIV isn't, and shouldn't be a 1-stop 'block this guy' shop, man. SQL^{Query me!} 05:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I had very little issues when the block evasion was occurring yesterday and I used AIV to report them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you've used the page inappropriately in the past, does not mean that you are presently using it appropriately. I don't have a problem with you man - I'm just asking that you not draw us off of ongoing vandalism / spam to deal with meta issues / block enforcement / ban enforcement. WP:ANI is probably the appropriate venue for your issue. SQL^{Query me!} 05:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well then, you could probably act on the report at ANI then. It's not hard to find. This guy's sockpuppets have been perpetuating a thread complaining about me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to bow out at this point, friend. I hope you can take my advice. Thanks for your time. SQL^{Query me!} 06:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It appears that I am going to need it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Similar Cases

Hi Ryulong. Just for your information, regarding the recent Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dragonron case which you had filed, there are some sockpuppet accounts which have been confirmed match at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Presbitow case which I had filed, specifically Presbitow, Wizradman and AS92813 which are all the same. You might want to take a look at the other case if you like to. Thanks. -TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably related to Don't Feed the Zords/BuickCenturyDriver.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I see, thanks for your reply. -TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It's all very complicated and by the time I saw the case it was closed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The straw poll

Could you just re-open the poll and request it be closed by an uninvolved party. It would save so much trouble. Thanks, Nick (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Is Jeffrd making that much of a fuss to you on IRC?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Stand Alone Complex's plot

since you are the only one contesting, i suggest we discuss this in the talkpage and try to reach a mutual agreement.Lucia Black (talk) 08:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

What.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration motions regarding Ryulong

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Motion 1

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.

Motion 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.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 18:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this