Ryulong might be going to arbitration Options

[EricBarbour]

Just a thought......

If the two of you could bear to take that time you're using to insult each other, and
log into WP and file an RFAR against Raul, I suspect you might have some minor success.
At very least, you'd probably get more satisfaction from embarrassing Pellegrini than from
this pissing contest.

It's not as if there's a shortage of evidence to use against the bastard.

[Shalom]

Just a thought......

If the two of you could bear to take that time you're using to insult each other, and
log into WP and file an RFAR against Raul, I suspect you might have some minor success.
At very least, you'd probably get more satisfaction from embarrassing Pellegrini than from
this pissing contest.

It's not as if there's a shortage of evidence to use against the bastard.

I hesitate to take this seriously, but the prospect of arbitration reminds me of my very first post on WR in connection with Raul654's wrong block on CreepyCrawly. Some of the wiki evidence is preserved here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cre...ion_from_Shalom

If even after my last efforts on that page I would still not have secured CreepyCrawly's unblock, my next stop might have been arbitration.

I checked Raul654's block log and he's still blocking sockpuppets of Scibaby. I'm not sure what impresses me more, Scibaby's persistence in disrupting Wikipedia or Raul's persistence in defending it. Some months ago Raul said he was done fighting this battle because his BOLD full protection of global warming articles didn't stand up to community opposition, but he's still fighting that battle.

[Snowey]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...long_desysopped

Grab your popcorn.

[Milton Roe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...long_desysopped

Grab your popcorn.

If it takes 4 votes and he has 4, does this mean that's it, so long as nobody comes in and opposes?

That will be another classical nasty Kabbalist down. Ryulong's score is 33:

#1 Yasser_Arafat - edited by 4 of 4 users
#2 World_War_I - edited by 4 of 4 users
#3 Wikipedia - edited by 4 of 4 users
#4 The_Holocaust - edited by 4 of 4 users
#5 Terrorism - edited by 4 of 4 users
#6 Taliban - edited by 4 of 4 users
#7 Steven_Spielberg - edited by 4 of 4 users
#8 September_11_attacks - edited by 4 of 4 users
#9 Self-hating_Jew - edited by 4 of 4 users
#10 Saddam_Hussein - edited by 4 of 4 users
#11 Racism - edited by 4 of 4 users
#12 Osama_bin_Laden - edited by 4 of 4 users
#13 Nazism - edited by 4 of 4 users
#14 Nazi_Germany - edited by 4 of 4 users
#15 Mein_Kampf - edited by 4 of 4 users
#16 List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations - edited by 4 of 4 users
#17 Lebanon - edited by 4 of 4 users
#18 Judaism - edited by 4 of 4 users
#19 Jew_Watch - edited by 4 of 4 users
#20 Jew - edited by 4 of 4 users
#21 Jerusalem - edited by 4 of 4 users
#22 Holocaust_denial - edited by 4 of 4 users
#23 Hobo - edited by 4 of 4 users
#24 Grigori_Rasputin - edited by 4 of 4 users
#25 God - edited by 4 of 4 users
#26 Christianity - edited by 4 of 4 users
#27 British_National_Party - edited by 4 of 4 users
#28 Berlin_Wall - edited by 4 of 4 users
#29 Arnold_Schwarzenegger - edited by 4 of 4 users
#30 Antisemitism - edited by 4 of 4 users
#31 American_Jews - edited by 4 of 4 users
#32 Al-Qaeda - edited by 4 of 4 users
#33 Adolf_Hitler - edited by 4 of 4 users

One more rumble of the powershift.

PS: what's with Rlevse's concern about Ryulong having "rollback"? Again, is rollback not simply the same as picking an old version you like, clicking "edit," and saving it? There's gotta be something I don't understand. Would the universe collapse if Ryulong could (or could not) continue to do that?

[Sarcasticidealist]

PS: what's with Rlevse's concern about Ryulong having "rollback"? Again, is rollback not simply the same as picking an old version you like, clicking "edit," and saving it? There's gotta be something I don't understand. Would the universe collapse if Ryulong could (or could not) continue to do that?

Well, not "picking an old version" - rollback automatically brings you back to the version before the most recent editor started editing it. As for why it's allegedly a big deal, you don't get the chance to put in an edit summary for it, which means that it's only supposed to be used for bad faith stuff; anybody operating in good faith is supposed to be entitled to an explanation of why you're undoing their edits. That's the theory, anyway.

[Milton Roe]

PS: what's with Rlevse's concern about Ryulong having "rollback"? Again, is rollback not simply the same as picking an old version you like, clicking "edit," and saving it? There's gotta be something I don't understand. Would the universe collapse if Ryulong could (or could not) continue to do that?

Well, not "picking an old version" - rollback automatically brings you back to the version before the most recent editor started editing it. As for why it's allegedly a big deal, you don't get the chance to put in an edit summary for it, which means that it's only supposed to be used for bad faith stuff; anybody operating in good faith is supposed to be entitled to an explanation of why you're undoing their edits. That's the theory, anyway.

Okay, so why a software program that WON'T let you save with edit summary "RVV, "or "Welcome to Wikipedia!". Was rollback DESIGNED to make people angry? You can always go back and save an earlier verion withou an edit summary if you WANT to. Does "rollback" add "neener, neener, you vandal putz!"

If this why Rlevse fears Ryulong might not be able to use it any more?

[Sarcasticidealist]

Okay, so why a software program that WON'T let you save with edit summary "RVV, "or "Welcome to Wikipedia!".

Because it's faster; adding the intermediate phase where the edit summary field appears would slow it down.

[Milton Roe]

Okay, so why a software program that WON'T let you save with edit summary "RVV, "or "Welcome to Wikipedia!".

Because it's faster; adding the intermediate phase where the edit summary field appears would slow it down.

Couldn't they have the edit summary auto-add "Welcome to Wikipedia!" ? It's polite and mildly sarcastic. What's not to like?

[georgeieboy]

it is looking like ryulong is gonna get what he requires. Fucked off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...long_desysopped

[Milton Roe]

it is looking like ryulong is gonna get what he requires. Fucked off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...long_desysopped

Rlevse is talking about taking away Ryulong's rollback privilege for 6 months. Oh, the inhumanity! Is there no revenge too great! It's cruel. It's unusual. It's really..... wierd.

Speaking of weirdnesses, here is ArbComm Love Potion #9:

Blocking
9) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking. Blocking may only be used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, and not to punish users; that is, blocking is preventative, not punitive. Blocks should be made only if other means --such as warnings-- are not likely to be effective. Even when reversed, blocks that appear arbitrary or capricious, or are based on poor methodology and evidence, have a chilling effect on people's willingness to contribute to Wikipedia.

Support:
FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
FloNight♥♥♥ 09:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Vassyana (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

===================================

If Arbcom does not make policy, what is all the wanking above, about? What is there to "support" or "oppose," if the principle is already written down someplace (which I believe it is) and Arbcom can't change it? Why not just refer to it by title and statute or something? And say they're putting it down because they think it applies to a violation of it by User:NumbNuts, or something. Which I think is actually the point of the above, but I cannot be sure, because it's written in Wikipedian-- a language I'm not fluent in, and which Bablefish won't handle.

[Sarcasticidealist]

If Arbcom does not make policy, what is all the wanking above, about? What is there to "support" or "oppose," if the principle is already written down someplace (which I believe it is) and Arbcom can't change it?

You incorrectly assume that i. policy is written down some place, and ii. things that are written down on policy pages are actually policy. That's not the Wikipedia Way ™. The Wikipedia Way ™ is sort of like the Common Law back before there was any kind of a body of precedent: Arb Comm doesn't make policy, the policy already exists. Arb Comm merely identifies it.

Besides that, the purpose of specifically articulating a universally agreed upon policy is that the principles and the finding of facts together are supposed to create kind of an implied syllogism: "It is against policy to block carelessly. Admin X has blocked carelessly. Therefore, Admin X has violated policy."

[EricBarbour]

Speaking of weirdnesses, here is ArbComm Love Potion #9:
Blocking
9) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking.
Support:
FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
FloNight♥♥♥ 09:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Vassyana (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It's for comic effect, maybe?.........

But seriously, after reading a lot of crap surrounding Ryu's battles with Mythdon, I'm still
in the dark about what the hell they were doing to each other. This tells me little, except
they were pissing at each other over Power Rangers articles. (What a pathetic thing to
be desysopped over. Ryu deserves a barnstar for Trivia Whoring or something.)

[Milton Roe]

You incorrectly assume that i. policy is written down some place, and ii. things that are written down on policy pages are actually policy. That's not the Wikipedia Way ™. The Wikipedia Way ™ is sort of like the Common Law back before there was any kind of a body of precedent: Arb Comm doesn't make policy, the policy already exists. Arb Comm merely identifies it.

Ah. Like the English constitution and the idea of Natural Rights. With a bit of starchamber, witch trials, heresy trials, and treason trials thrown in for spice.

If Wikipedia is due to recreate all the history of human progress in government, where do you put them about now? I'd say England about .... 1640. No revolution yet, and not yet any attempt of Jimbo and the WMF to take it all back, and be Lord Protector and Commonwealth. Sigh. A lot of good stuff still to go!

Besides that, the purpose of specifically articulating a universally agreed upon policy is that the principles and the finding of facts together are supposed to create kind of an implied syllogism: "It is against policy to block carelessly. Admin X has blocked carelessly. Therefore, Admin X has violated policy."

Yes, that's what I figured. Every ArbCom sets down enthymemes, using one or more semi-new premises taken (by consensus of the moment by the people elected at the moment) from an unwritten code, which keeps changing.

Wheeee.

[georgeieboy]

this is the way it is going to end in Ryulong's tears and throwing his silly childrens toys out of his pram. that is funny so funny Eric.(What a pathetic thing to be desysopped over. Ryu deserves a barnstar for Trivia Whoring or something.)
this is funny but not actually the reason he is gonna be fucked ,the actual reason is that he is a arrogant arsehole .

.Ryulong desysopped

1) For misuse of his administrative tools, failure to address the community's concerns, and inappropriate off-wiki behavior, Ryulong is desysopped. He may regain his adminship either though RfA at any time, or by appeal to ArbCom no less than 6 months after the closure of the case.

Support:

1. First choice. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 9:33 am, 12 May 2009, last Tuesday (3 days ago) (UTC+1)
2. First choice. It came down to this. Wizardman 9:17 pm, 12 May 2009, last Tuesday (3 days ago) (UTC+1)
3. First choice, regrettably. Casliber (talk · contribs) 9:57 pm, 12 May 2009, last Tuesday (3 days ago) (UTC+1)
4. First choice. Assuming this includes the rollback button since users can have it but not the admin bit? — Rlevse • Talk • 1:31 am, Yesterday (UTC+1)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 1:00 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[Jon Awbrey]

If Wikipedia is due to recreate all the history of human progress in government, where do you put them about now? I'd say England about … 1640. No revolution yet, and not attempt of Jimbo and the WMF to take it all back and be Lord Protector and Commonwealth. Sigh. A lot of good stuff still to go!

Speaking of enthymemes, you make the highly questionable assumption that Wikipediot ontogeny is recapitulating, not decapitulating phylogeny.

Jon

[Milton Roe]

But seriously, after reading a lot of crap surrounding Ryu's battles with Mythdon, I'm still
in the dark about what the hell they were doing to each other. This tells me little, except
they were pissing at each other over Power Rangers articles. (What a pathetic thing to
be desysopped over. Ryu deserves a barnstar for Trivia Whoring or something.)

Or in his case, a Barnstar of David for Jewish trivia. But that's okay, WP isn't paper. If he'd really spent all that time beavering away on synogogues, nobody would have noticed. We all have our stampcollections. Yes, I know WP is NOT a stamp collection. Except, it sort of is. Which is okay.

[Snowey]

So, who wants to ask Raul if he'll finally admit that promoting Ryulong with <70% support was a total, utter, blatant error in judgment that has caused precisely the sort of abuse and drama those who opposed Ryulong's sysop candidacy warned about?

[Viridae]

So, who wants to ask Raul if he'll finally admit that promoting Ryulong with <70% support was a total, utter, blatant error in judgment that has caused precisely the sort of abuse and drama those who opposed Ryulong's sysop candidacy warned about?

I was thinking that.

[Moulton]

If Wikipedia is due to recreate all the history of human progress in government, where do you put them about now?

I answered that question here.

[Cla68]

But seriously, after reading a lot of crap surrounding Ryu's battles with Mythdon, I'm still
in the dark about what the hell they were doing to each other. This tells me little, except
they were pissing at each other over Power Rangers articles. (What a pathetic thing to
be desysopped over. Ryu deserves a barnstar for Trivia Whoring or something.)

Or in his case, a Barnstar of David for Jewish trivia. But that's okay, WP isn't paper. If he'd really spent all that time beavering away on synogogues, nobody would have noticed. We all have our stampcollections. Yes, I know WP is NOT a stamp collection. Except, it sort of is. Which is okay.

Yes, we do each have our stamp collections, which is one reason why I try not to criticize the editors involved in building the Power Ranger, Kamen Rider, and Pocket Monsters articles. Those articles, though, have a lot of issues. They're often sourced to fansites, which is apparently ok for articles on fictional subjects, but it still looks kind of bush league. I guess, though, until the "Definitive Guide to the Pokeman Universe" gets published in English, that they're stuck with what they have to work with. I'm not sure, however, how Ryulong's heavy-hand on the ban button was related to those articles.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Thu 14th May 2009, 11:21pm