Oh my god! Ryulong is Danny's son or maybe even Danny! Options

[LamontStormstar]

In one thread a ways back I speculated on Ryulong being the son of Jayjg and SlimVirgin.

In yet another thread somwhere someone else said that Ryulong obviously is a sock puppet of another administrator. I asked some questions and yada yada, nothing came of it.

I'll get right down to it.

Danny and Ryulong both moved from Brooklyn, New York to Florida.

See their IPs
http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/cgi-bin/girc.cgi?Na=Ryulong
http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/cgi-bin/girc.cgi?Na=Danny

Also old versions of Ryulong's userpage said he was from Brooklyn. It may still say it somewhere. Even if he deletes it, there are lots of mirrors. Danny's userpage says he moved from somewhere to Florida.


Wikipedia watch has:

Danny
administrator
Jimbo's executive assistant
(resigned 2007-03-20)
Danny Wool
St.Petersburg, Florida, USA
born:1963-09-07
formerly lived in Brooklyn, where he worked
for the Museum of Jewish Heritage in New York

Another similarity.

Ryulong's last adminship had too low a percentage for him to be nominated, but Raul made him admin despite this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...nship/Ryulong_3


Danny, despite resigning, ran for adminship again and then despite losing, Raul made him admin anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...ly_unacceptable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...Dan.27s_conduct



Here's the kicker.....

August 2, Ryulong deleted my userpage purely because he saw me posting on Wikipedia Review. Majorly then restored it August 24th. September 14th, Ryulong came and deleted it. A MERE FOUR MINUTES LATER, Danny came and deleted my talk page. I thought at the time someone emailed a bunch of admins, but it turns out that's not the case.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...LamontStormstar
01:57, 14 September 2007 Ryulong (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:LamontStormstar" ? (User's only edit to this page was to add {{wikibreak}} and the user has made absolutely no contributions elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a free webhost.)
18:20, 24 August 2007 Majorly (Talk | contribs) restored "User:LamontStormstar" ? (3 revision(s) restored: must have been a mistaken delete on Ryulong's part. Restoring.)
08:02, 2 August 2007 Ryulong (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:LamontStormstar" ? (User has not edited Wikipedia in a year; WP:NOT#WEBSPACE)



http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...LamontStormstar
02:01, 14 September 2007 Danny (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:LamontStormstar" ? (content was: ''''Welcome!'''Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like ...')


The evidence here points to Ryulong being the same person as Danny, however Danny is 44 years old right now. And yet, Ryulong has a huge fascination with Japanese children's TV shows--not stuff when Danny was a kid that he may be nostalogic about but children's shows for a person born in 1990 and later. So unless Ryulong is his son, then Danny at age 44 has a huge obsession with lots of children's TV shows and that is TRULY DISTURBING.



This post has been edited by LamontStormstar:

[dtobias]

This is the sort of thread that gives WR a bad name as an "attack site", when you go into flights of bizarre speculation about what the real-life relationship might be between various editors and admins, with digressions where you sneer at their apparent interests, hobbies, and so on. Can't you stick to actual proven facts that are relevant to conflicts of interest you're exposing, instead of random smears that you hope will stick?

[Firsfron of Ronchester]

This is the sort of thread that gives WR a bad name as an "attack site", when you go into flights of bizarre speculation about what the real-life relationship might be between various editors and admins, with digressions where you sneer at their apparent interests, hobbies, and so on. Can't you stick to actual proven facts that are relevant to conflicts of interest you're exposing, instead of random smears that you hope will stick?

I can only agree, Dan. I'm not sure what caused this round of speculation, but the "links" between these editors are not at all convincing. WR is better than this sort of commentary. Who cares if someone edits kiddie shows? Someone has to (besides the kiddies). If there was a conflict of interest , I think it should be exposed, but I don't see anything like that here.

[Jonny Cache]

Who cares if someone edits kiddie shows? Someone has to (besides the kiddies). If there was a conflict of interest , I think it should be exposed, but I don't see anything like that here.

People have given you abundant good reason to care about the fact that someone with the mentality of an 8 year old on crack is taking major editorial control over the state of articles and the retention of editors in areas that he or she does not know squat about.

People have given you ample evidence to make it clear that there is an Inherent Conflict Of Interest between the Interest of people who are pathological liars � who lie about their names, their education, their personal data, their qualifications, and everything else they find it convenient to lie about � and the Interest of building an educational resource founded on reality and truth.

But you find it convenient to ignore all that, and you continue to disgust us with your moronic excuses for crimes against knowledge.

Go back where you can still win arguments by pretending to be ignorant, even moreso by actually being an ediot.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Firsfron of Ronchester]

Who cares if someone edits kiddie shows? Someone has to (besides the kiddies). If there was a conflict of interest , I think it should be exposed, but I don't see anything like that here.

People have given you abundant good reason to care about the fact that someone with the mentality of an 8 year old on crack is taking major editorial control over the state of articles and the retention of editors in areas that he or she does not know squat about.

No, what people have stated here is that it is "deeply disturbing" that an admin on Wikipedia watches kiddie shows, and that this someone has the "mentality of an 8 year old". Albert Einstein was a big fan of popular children's puppet shows of the 1940s and 50s (link) (link) while writing The Meaning of Relativity, Ideas and Opinions, and "Why Socialism?" Watching a certain TV show does not in itself prevent someone from being able to make a rational decision regarding editorial control over the state of articles, and it does not mean the person has the "mentality of an 8 year old".

This post has been edited by Firsfron of Ronchester: