Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

Case Opened on 23:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Case Closed on 20:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Case Amended by Motion on 15:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Case Amended by Motion on 00:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Case Amended by Motion on 18:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Case Amended by Motion on 06:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 23:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Initiated by Synergy at 01:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Synergy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Hersfold (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• 1
• Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• First RfC
• Second RfC

See also

• ANI
• Previous declined RFAR

I am here as an uninvolved party from the second RfC on Ryulong and as such, he and I have not been in a dispute that falls under the many concerns raised by the community, in either RfC.

Ryulong has shown, throughout two RfCs, that he is displaying a lack of good judgment. Briefly, he states that he has trouble with a particular editor, and seems he also cannot control himself while editing with him, or conversing. Also, he appears to use his rollback for regular editing, and has made some potentially (if not drastically) serious mistakes with respect to blocking. I fear that, if it was not for the potential threat of this very arbitration case, he would not have agreed to change (I would like to point out that, he only said he'd partially change though).

Lastly, I am filing this on behalf of a number of editors who feel he should have his bit removed. I think that, if he cannot discuss his actions properly, and is unwilling to cease with these kinds of edits, blocking, and reverting, we might not have any other choice. Yet, I do not want him to leave the project, as he has stated (upon this case being filed) he might but his actions cannot be overlooked in the hopes of change through a third RfC. So I ask the committee to take this into consideration and determine a suitable outcome that can possibly retain an experienced user.

Note that there may be other editors who wish to add themselves to this case. Synergy 01:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Vassyana and Coren

If I may, and as Tiptoety states: This case was filed before the RfC was closed. So technically, what you are asking is impossible. Essentially, any diffs provided for the RfC will be prior to it, while any diffs presented here would be produced during the RfC (in between his statements and talk page messages on the RfC) or prior to the filing of this case. And for the record, this was the intent of my view on the second RfC (that if members of the community felt an arbitration case was necessary, I would file). The only thing I left open ended, was the time of filing. Synergy 03:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Carcharoth

I took this into consideration when filing. I wanted to make sure that discussion was either drawing to a close or giving the appearance of this, and possibly a statement or view that ran contrary to my own (basically, a show of hands that disagree with this being filed). I waited approximately five days, but it never came. Synergy 23:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Ryulong

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the edit war and your interactions with Mythdon would also fall under the purview of this arbitration case. Past and present actions with this user, to be specific. The RfC dealt with rollback and usage of the blocking tool, while this case is set to examine pretty much any incident with respect to it (basing this off of Wizardman and CHL's comments that your conduct and behaviour will be looked at), and possibly more as the case develops. Synergy 13:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the beginning of that RFC, I have been working to change how I use rollback and how I use blocks (and warnings against being blocked). The only thing that's happened at that RFC since then was a pile-on support for the comments made (particularly by Synergy). The first RFC shows that at the time, I was supported by the community. When my use of rollback was brought up by another user at ANI, it was also supported by the community.

In dealing with the editor who I bring up at the RFC, I've been asking other administrators to step in and converse with him to allieviate my loss of patience with him. Every administrator I've asked to intervene has told me that they are not surprised that I lost my patience with the user. Several other users have also had problems with the comments made by this user at the 2nd RFC, as well as his comments towards me or about me (as well as his fervent wish to be an administrator himself).

I no longer make block after block after block or rollback after rollback after rollback as I did in the beginning of my adminship, but I use my administrative tools to do the upkeep of the articles I have on my watchlist. Occasionally, I take a look at AN and ANI and try to help out there.

I saw the comments made by users at this second RFC and have done my best to take these pieces of criticism and change my actions. I've realized a few times that I should not have pressed rollback, and I honestly don't make enough bad blocks (in the long run) for a desysop to be worth it. If anything should be taken into account in this RFAR request, it should be actions taken after the second RFC instead of all of the actions that led to the 2nd RFC (because RFC/U's on administrators have simply been a way to go through all of their edits or actions and pick out the worst possible things to get support on the RFC or RFAR).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Tiptoety

As I stated in the RFC, there is no way for my patience to be returned in dealing with Mythdon (the editor I do not name explicitly above, but I'm forced to now). On several occasions, I've asked other administrators (Cyde, Hersfold, MBisanz, JPG-GR, to name a few) to intervene and discuss things with him. On every single one of these occasions, these administrators have told me that they quite clearly see how I have grown tired of dealing with him. Again, the way I talk to him is not going to change, unless I get restrictions to where I cannot talk to him. And I do not threaten to use any administrative tools against him. I say the following: "If you can't work amicably or constructively in this topic area anymore, you may be banned from it." I use "ban" because it takes the community to deal with him. If I had the time, I'd start an RFC on him, but with this, I probably won't have that time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this page's history has nothing to do with this RFAR. It may be an edit war, but not one in which I blocked or used rollback at all, and is simply an example of Mythdon and I butting heads, which also isn't part of this case.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 3 (to no one in particular)

How am I supposed to show improvement after the second RFC if it was closed directly after this case started? And several of the instances being brought up by these editors with grievances either took place before the second RFC or are simply edits that took place in the early stages of the RFC while I was still taking things in to improve. I changed my statement at the RFC after I saw the greater amount of users who saw I had issues, and Synergy's only involvement was using the RFC to create a petition to start this very RFAR case. Is there no problem with that?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Jayvdb

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. And out of all of the edits I've made in the past two weeks barely any of them have been use of rollback, and those that I have made are easily backed up. And the single block that Mythdon has decided to bring up for the main fact that I did not tell the user that I blocked him/her is also easily backed up, even amongst the very few blocks I perform nowadays, even after the RFC. I've been taking in the criticism from the RFCs. But Synergy just felt like using the RFC as a petition to start this up, regardless of any changes I have been making which won't be brought up until an evidence page has to be made up if this case gets accepted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been seeing lots of abuse from Ryulong, and as an editor, have been dealing with it. In the past, he has threatened to seek that a block be placed on my account. Now, having provided that diff, I can't see anything wrong with nominating an article for deletion for lacking coverage in reliable sources and not being able to justify notability. He has also made these type of threats to other editors. This is cleary not a blockable offense. It is perfectly fine to have an opposing opinion on an edit, but threatening blocks is not an option. After all, consensus is Wikipedia's decision making process. Basically, Ryulong is abusively controlling other editors—not allowing them to do the opposite of what he wants.

As for rollback, he had overused it, and abused it all at once. I have warned him to change the way he uses the function, but he has yet to prove he has really changed, although he hasn't abused rollback in his last 50 edits.

Even if he hasn't done these things lately, "lately" is not enough for permanent change. I invite all editors to dig further from what I have provided as evidence. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Jayvdb

I recently scrolled through one of Ryulong's recent blocks, and he did not leave a message informing the user blocked here of his/her block. I do not know whether or not Ryulong has been confronted for such actions before as I haven't read his first RfC, but I am still bringing that block up as it is too big of an issue not to talk about. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as though this RFAr is premature, and would request that the Committee allow more time for the effects of the RfC to come to light.

In the recent RfC, you will note that a large number of editors all commented similarly; that Ryulong was using his administrator rights and incivil tactics in attempts to gain unfair advantages in discussions and to dissuade editors who disagreed with him. You will further note that I was one of these editors, and in fact certified the RfC. Since then, however, with the wide range of criticism and advice brought in from that RfC, I believe Ryulong is attempting to make a change in his behavior for the better. In the discussion Tiptoety cites, you will notice further on that I entered the dispute myself (see here). This is because Ryulong realized he was starting to go too far, and so he sought me out on IRC for advice on how to proceed and assistance in working with Mythdon. As the discussion continued, Mythdon made increasingly confusing logical fallacies and I began to feel as though Mythdon was deliberately making a scene in an effort to provoke Ryulong into making the sort of claims Tiptoety is accusing him of. This comment in particular shows a very blatant assumption of bad faith from Mythdon. In other situations, Ryulong has made efforts to contact other administrators to discuss matters he is involved in, and I believe has become more moderate with his use of the tools. Just last night, he was apparently surprised when I recommended he block a user caught making hoaxes and socking for "a couple weeks", feeling as though a few days would be more appropriate for what at first glance appeared to be a first offense.

In conclusion, I feel as though the changes that the above users are looking for are not going to happen overnight, however they are occurring. It takes time for these things to occur, and there is a definite learning curve involved. Ryulong needs to be given the opportunity for these changes to happen, and two weeks is insufficient to that purpose, particularly when the filing parties are only able to refer to one incident in which Ryulong did in fact show promise. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Mythdon (following edit conflict)

Aside from the incident Tiptoety and I noted, have there been any similar incidents since the RfC? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Tiptoety / Vassyana

I've just been going through my IRC logs, and while I cannot provide copies of them at this time per policy, I can attest that Ryulong has contacted me or others multiple times for "sanity checks" on actions he was planning on making. Dates I list below will be in Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-4, and so may not necessarily line up with server time. Sorry.

• March 16 - Ryulong requested my assistance in working with Mythdon in the incident previously mentioned.
• March 19 - Ryulong asked me in the admins channel regarding blocking users at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Party Animal Magazine. He (rightly) suspected socking at the AfD, and was wondering if it was appropriate to block the author of the article as well. He originally considered 24 hours, and was surprised when I recommended two weeks. When we both looked into things further, we eventually decided on the current indefinite block.
• March 20 - Ryulong asked me if he could rollback the addition of images he was about to delete (according to policy) because the images were added in multiple edits. I recommended he use Twinkle or another method, which he readily accepted.
• March 20 - Ryulong asked me if it would be appropriate to rollback this edit. As there is no such show as "Power Rangers: History Force" I told him it should be fine.

Those are the only incidents in which I have been personally involved, but if I have time later I may try to go through logs et al. to find some more instances of improvement. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

• Recuse - per my statement. Tiptoety ^talk 01:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question, some of the Arbs have mentioned the behavior of all parties and some have mentioned only Ryulong, what is the preferred case-name? MBisanz ^talk 06:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept There seems to be sufficient areas of concern here that we need to take a deeper look at. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Hersfold's comment is convincing and sways me towards declining the request. However, I would like to see more indications about improvement or lack thereof, as well as related signs illustrating the viability of dispute resolution. There are those saying there is improvement and those saying that the same problems are continuing without abatement. While I am currently leaning towards declining this request, I would like more evidence and information before making a determination. --Vassyana (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept. There is obvious disagreement over how to interpret Ryulong's actions and improvement (or lack thereof). Some of the concerns and conflicts are of a long-standing nature. Also, per Coren and FloNight. --Vassyana (talk) 06:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment; I would prefer to see indications that Ryulong is ignoring the RfC or is acting in significantly problematic ways since that RfC before I would consider accepting. — Coren ^(talk) 17:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  After consideration, accept; the matter appears divisive enough, and the alleged misuse serious enough, that it's almost certainly better to examine Ryulong's behavior and its context in the (more) calm setting of a case than by repeated RfCs. — Coren ^(talk) 21:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept. I rejected a previous similar request for arbitration about Ryulong as premature. I hoped that the RFC would give needed feedback to address the concerns. "If" the problems have continued, the concerns need to be looked at by the Committee as the only people that can sanction an administrator for abuse of admin tools. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC) (tweaked wording to clarify that I'm not decided on the seriousness of the concerns). FloNight♥♥♥ 18:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - currently reviewing. Depending on further statements, should be decided on my view about acceptance or rejection by tonight (Sunday/Monday UTC). Leaning towards acceptance, as previous RFCs and RFARs exist, but need to check what changes or lack of changes took place since those discussions. Have also noted that the most recent RfC was closed as this RFAR had been filed, and that there had been no activity at the RfC in five days. Not sure exactly how long an RfC should be left to be given a chance, but will be reviewing that as well. Carcharoth (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept per Vassyana and John. Carcharoth (talk) 08:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Ryulong and Mythdon, can you both separately provide a commitment to disengage in a way that would be mutually acceptable? Has there been a problem since March 15? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Accept. Ryulong and Mythdon have both responded, but neither have given a commitment to disengage. In the recent history of "List of Power Rangers: RPM episodes, which includes an edit war between Ryulong and Mythdon, Ryulong uses undo without an edit summary, which is the crux of WP:RFAR/Dbachmann#Rollback and a prominent part of the RFC. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Updated 09:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Accept to look at behavior of all involved parties. Wizardman 03:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Admin conduct is one of our main purposes. Cool Hand Luke 18:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept - per Wizardman. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Ryulong is a dedicated administrator with some well-known sharp edges. I remember writing one of my long posts about Ryulong and his critics, urging him to work on various aspects of his tone and use of tools, a year and a half ago. I am glad to see a commitment to some changes in light of the recent RfC, but regret that some of that hadn't happened awhile back. Ordinarily, I would say that an administrator's promise to improve based on recent RfC feedback would buy a "decline" from me at least for a few weeks to see how things went, but I understand that some of the concerns here are of longer standing, and so perhaps it is time to examine them, as six of my colleagues (so far) believe. Being conflicted on the matter, I abstain from voting on acceptance, and will await the evidence phase in this soon-to-open case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept  Roger Davies ^talk 06:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Decorum[edit]

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system is prohibited. Concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Administrative decorum[edit]

2) Administrators are expected to maintain an appropriate level of decorum. In particular, they are expected to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others, and to avoid acting in a way that brings the project into disrepute.

Passed 11 to 1 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Struggle and standard of debate[edit]

3) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia, in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. While disagreements among editors are inevitable, all editors are expected to work calmly and reasonably towards resolving them, to collaborate in good faith, and to compromise where appropriate—even if they believe that their viewpoint is the only correct one. It is also inevitable that philosophical differences among the participants will result in disputes over questions regarding project policies. Nevertheless, discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion. It is unacceptable for editors to engage in vituperative rhetoric without attempting to seek help and advice from others in other areas of the project.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Building consensus: WikiProjects[edit]

4) A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific topic or family of topics within Wikipedia; and, simultaneously, a group of editors that use said pages to collaborate on encyclopedic work. It may maintain various collaborative processes, keep track of work that needs to be done, and act as a forum where issues of interest to the editors of a subject may be discussed. It should not be used as a platform to push for a certain type of agenda or a view. When in doubt about achieving consensus at the WikiProject level, users are always encouraged to seek help beyond that (i.e. sister WikiProjects, Village pump, etc....).

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"Ignore all rules"[edit]

5) Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is one of the project's oldest policies and advises users: "if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." This advice can be helpful when addressing uncontroversial or unanticipated situations in which the project can best be helped by avoiding the unintended consequences that would occur by applying the literal wording of a policy. However, "ignore all rules" should not be used to circumvent a consensus decision about the application of a policy.

Passed 12 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Spirit versus letter[edit]

6) Usually, there is no clear distinction between proposed policy, guidelines, and official policy. Policy at Wikipedia is a matter of consensus, tradition, and practice. While the principles of the policies are mostly well established, the details are often still evolving. Policies are not drafted like legal documents and users are urged not to be legalistic about reading policy pages. Policies are actually there to help Wikipedia work, defining more closely what should be done and preserving a good atmosphere. A narrow view of a policy or guideline is not likely to resolve matters. All policies and guidelines together convey to the same ideas as the five pillars.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Administrators[edit]

7) Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship, as administrators are not expected to be perfect, but consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Administrator communications[edit]

8) Administrators are expected to provide timely and civil explanations for their actions. All administrator actions are logged and offer a "reason" field to be used for this purpose. While all editors are expected to reply to good-faith queries about their activities placed on their talk page, administrators are particularly expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them when needed.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocking[edit]

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.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Baiting[edit]

10) Editing in a manner so as to provoke other editors goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors. Editing in such a manner may be perceived as trolling and harassment.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Repeated notifications[edit]

11) Notifications are good practice. However, frequent and repeated notifications of the same subject directed at the same user may be perceived as harassment. Instead of notifying the same user of the same thing repeatedly, users are advised to seek other venues and let other uninvolved users and/or administrators to deal with it.

Passed 12 to 1 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Notifying users of potential and effective blocks[edit]

12.1) Although notifying users of potential blocks is commonplace, administrators should take care to avoid comments that could reasonably be interpreted as a threat to block a user with whom they are in a content dispute.

Passed 10 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Rollback[edit]

13.2) The rollback tool allows administrators and rollbackers to quickly perform reverts. It should be used with caution and restraint, in part because it does not allow adding an explanation to the automatic edit summary. Rollback is typically used to revert vandalism and edits by banned users who are not allowed to make those edits. The rollback tool should not usually be used to perform any revert which ought ordinarily to be explained, such as a revert of a good-faith content edit, nor should it be used in content disputes. However, rollback may be used in circumstances where widely spread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, since such edits would be tedious to revert manually. In such instances, it is expected that an explanation will be provided in an appropriate location, such as at a relevant talk page.

Passed 11 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Recall process[edit]

14) The recall process is voluntary. However, for the sake of mutual trust and respect between administrators and users and administrators themselves, it is recommended that administrators who opt for being open to recall respect their own words and promises. It is also recommended to have one's recall procedure explicit (in the administrator's userspace) in order to avoid any unnecessary requests for clarifications.

Passed 10 to 1 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Recidivism[edit]

15) Users and administrators whose actions have been questioned many times are expected to avoid repeating mistakes should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of severe sanctions.

Passed 12 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment/User conduct[edit]

16) A user-conduct request for comment ("RfC/U") represents a forum in which editors may raise concerns about the conduct of a fellow editor or administrator. Although this procedure can be misused, when utilized in good faith, it presents an editor with the opportunity to learn that concerns exist about his or her conduct, respond to the concerns, and if appropriate adjust his or her conduct. Civility and decorum are especially important in the highly charged atmosphere of a user-conduct RfC. RfCs should neither be used abusively nor the concerns raised there should be ignored.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

External conduct[edit]

17) While users' conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions, the Committee may choose to consider off-wiki activities which are egregiously disruptive to the project in determining findings and sanctions.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Harassment[edit]

18) Any user conduct or comments that another editor could reasonably perceive as harassing (as defined in Wikipedia:Harassment) should be avoided. On occasion, an action or comment may cause someone to feel harassed, with justification, even if the action or comment was not intended as harassing. In such situations, the user discontinuing the objected-to behavior, promising not to repeat the behavior, or apologizing, is often sufficient to resolve the concern, especially where there is an isolated comment rather than a pattern of them.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

IRC Wikipedia #channels[edit]

19) Discussions held in the #wikipedia IRC channels have historically been subject to substantial and unpredictable unauthorized disclosure to parties outside the channel. This limits the channel(s) usefulness for discussion of matters requiring privacy and discretion. There have been several instances, both reported on-wiki and known to arbitrators anecdotally, in which users have approached administrators on IRC (whether in #wikipedia-en-admins specifically or in private discussions) for the purpose of urging that another user be blocked or moving or protecting a page, even though no emergency or other circumstances are present that would prevent the issue from being raised in the appropriate manner on-wiki. At times, these requests involve parties with whom a user is engaged in a content or editing dispute, but the user being discussed has no opportunity to respond to the allegation being made. Making frequent requests for blocks of users you are in dispute with and/or for actions concerning articles you are involved in may lead to sanctions.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sanctions and circumstances[edit]

20) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) This case involves two sets of disputes. One of these originated in the actions of administrator Ryulong including but not limited to his questionable blocks and use of the rollback tool while the other arises from the editorial conflicts over the verifiability of the content of articles falling under the scope of WikiProject Tokusatsu. A common element is the involvement of administrator Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Mythdon (talk · contribs) in both areas.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong[edit]

2) Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), has edited Wikipedia since February 2006, and has been an administrator since January 2007. He has made more than 82,000 edits to Wikipedia, has taken more than 10,000 administrator actions including blocks, deletions, and page protections, and has shown a high level of dedication to the project.

Passed 12 to 1 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon[edit]

3) Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing Wikipedia since December 2007. During that time, he has shown a strong interest in the same content area as Ryulong and a high level of dedication to the Tokusatsu WikiProject.

Passed 12 to 1 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong's first RfC[edit]

5) Ryulong's first RfC was opened on July 2007. The RfC concerned mainly his blocking attitude. In general, the community believed administrator Ryulong is a good asset to the project but that he's quite strict to when it comes to using the block button and that some of his blocks are excessive both in nature and in length. The community also agreed to give it another chance.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong's misuse of rollback[edit]

6.1) Ryulong has misused rollback by using it to revert edits within content disputes (for example see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). Ryulong was criticised during the second request for comment about him for so doing, but has continued misusing rollback in this way since then (for example see [7], [8], [9], [10]).

Passed 9 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to complaints about rollbacks[edit]

7) Several editors posted to Ryulongs's talkpage in regards to the rollbacks. Some protested the rollbacks, while others asked the reasons for them or expressed concern about potential violation of policy. Ryulong's responses to some of the queries were cursory, while others were reverted by Ryulong, sometimes in an uncivil manner such as here.

Passed 10 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to general complaints[edit]

8) Several editors have stated explicitly their concerns concerning Ryulongs's general administrative actions (see mainly both RfCs and the recent ANI thread). While Ryulong has disputed some of the concerns, he has maintained that he has been improving his overall performance as an administrator.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong and Mythdon's interactions[edit]

9) Ryulong and Mythdon have frequently interacted with each other in the course of article writing, particularly within WikiProject Tokusatsu. The interaction first started positively before it became negative. During these interactions, Mythdon would leave notes on Ryulong's talk page, but Ryulong generally found these to be unhelpful or lack validity. Mythdon has shown a continually strict interpretation of policies, and Ryulong has grown gradually more impatient with Mythdon as a result, multiple times stating that he would seek Mythdon be blocked for disruption.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible threats of blocks[edit]

10) During the dispute between Ryulong and Mythdon, the former has in a few occasions referred to Mythdon being blocked. One of those comments made on December 08 this one may be seen as a clear threat. Ryulong stated that 'there is no reason to believe it is not a block threat, and is one of the many instances where he has lost his patience in dealing with Mythdon.' The other two made on January 09 and February 09 are debatable whether they constitute a threat or not or whether the intention is clear or not or just referring to actually 'seeking' a block made by someone else (see here and here).

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong's second RfC[edit]

11) Ryulong's second RfC concerned mainly his use of rollback, and several instances of blocks he had performed. It also concerned his interactions with user:Mythdon. It was created on March 3, 2009 by user:Tiptoety and closed by the same user on March 20, 2009 just after this arbitration case started by user:Synergy. 13 members of the community endorsed the March 4th statement of Synergy where he said that "[he] is here to request that [Ryulong] steps down, or be prepared to have a Request for Arbitration filed in regards to this RfC upon a reasonable number of signatories endorsing this very statement". On the other hand, Ryulong responded to the RfC filing and saw 'no use to it, other than it being used in some future RFAR should he pisses someone off, again.'

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Behaviour of Ryulong during the case hearing[edit]

12) During this case hearing, there have been substantial improvements from the part of Ryulong. He's started to use the 'Undo' button instead that of Rollback when it is not necessary though not always leaving an edit summary for the revert (see here). However, during this case, Ryulong sometimes still used the Rollback button for non-vandalism edits (see here, here, here and here as examples).

Passed 12 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong and IRC I[edit]

13) A number of administrators have indicated that Ryulong has been seeking administrative actions from other administrators via Wikipedia IRC channels (see here and here). Requests made by Ryulong have spanned over a period of 2 years. Some indicated that they had warned him of the questionable nature of some of the requests (see here). Ryulong has confirmed these allegations.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong and IRC II[edit]

14) According to this evidence, Ryulong requested a page move and protection from administrator Risker on IRC.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon's posts at Ryulong's talk page[edit]

15) Mythdon has been posting notes at Ryulong's talk page for more than a year. Examples include Before your account (19 January 2008), username transaltion (18 January 2008), Fast responses (Why else would you respond very fast - 10 March 2008), Why? (Why is it that you archive your talk page every month? - 5 February 2008) and Ryulong on Youtube. However, most of Mythdon's posts in early 2009 consisted of warnings in relation to Ryulong's use of the rollback tool. On May 6, 2009, Mythdon marked an unsigned comment as "unsigned" belonging to another user --an edit that Ryulong undid (see [11]). Mythdon considers that some of those questions were 'just foolish and dumb questions and not intended as harassment'.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon monitoring users' use of Rollback[edit]

16) After Mythdon's exclusive monitoring of the use of the rollback feature by Ryulong, Mythdon has started in recent weeks to warn or investigate other users and administrators (see [12] [13] [14][15]). Mythdon has taken to patrolling through edits with the stated purpose to "look for rollbacks" to question editors about potential misuse of the tool.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon's interpretation of policies and guidelines[edit]

17) Throughout his time on Wikipedia, Mythdon has sometimes shown an excessively strict interpretation of policy as admitted by themselves here. This led to several confrontations between Mythdon and other editors including Ryulong, particularly within WikiProject Tokusatsu. In other cases, he was probably correct in raising the concerns though he has never tried any alternative methods or venues to seek assistance or wider opinions (see here and here).

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon stance toward the articles[edit]

18) Mythdon's contributions are mainly revolving around the Power Rangers area and topics. Mythdon has shown over the time that he holds a fixed view towards those subjects. Views include a determination of presenting some articles to AfD even after themselves finding reliable sources. (see [16])

Passed 12 to 1 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon and on and off-wiki harassment of Ryulong[edit]

19) On-wiki, Mythdon has asked Ryulong if he were user Ryulong on Youtube (see here). Off-wiki and back in March 2008, Mythdon did contact the account named Ryulong on Youtube, asking whether or not that user was the same Ryulong as the one on Wikipedia, in which the user declined to answer. Mythdon kept asking over and over for a period of time in hopes of receiving a response but never got one. This year, just about a few months ago, he attempted to ask again, but since the newer message didn't go through as far as he knows, there was no response, which implies that the user blocked him from contacting him. Besides that, he declares he has never attempted to contact Ryulong anywhere off-wiki. (see here)

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong discussing the identity of Mythdon[edit]

20) According to User:MBisanz, Ryulong approached MBisanz last week to inform him that he had found out Mythdon's real life identity through a Youtube page. According to the same information, a couple hours later an IP from the same US State as Ryulong harassed Mythdon calling him a 'little kid'. MBisanz says he confronted Ryulong and he denied socking, blaming his University's geolocation for the similarity (see here). The Arbitration Committee was satisfied with Ryulong's response that he was unlikely the IP behind the edit.

Passed 10 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Ryulong desysopped[edit]

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 through RfA at any time, or by appeal to ArbCom no less than 6 months after the closure of the case.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong admonished[edit]

3) Ryulong is admonished:

(A) For his behaviour off-wiki and directed to refrain from seeking Mythdon's identity off-wiki, identifying personal information of Wikipedia users, and from disclosing that information to others. Should Ryulong engage in any attempt to seek Mythdon's identity off wiki or in disclosing any information about Mythdon, then he may be sanctioned in accordance with the enforcement provisions;

(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.

Passed 12 to 1 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Amended 12 to 0 at 18:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Amendment[edit]

During the original case Ryulong was admonished for excessive off-wiki requests of an inappropriate nature in remedy 3b, which reads in part:

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.

Passed 12 to 0 at 18:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Mythdon restricted and placed under mentorship[edit]

4) Mythdon is restricted and placed under mentorship for a period of 1 year. The terms are:

(A) Mythdon is urged to find a mentor within a month of the closure of this case, and is free to get a mentor of his/her choice. Mythdon is directed to inform the Committee once the mentor is selected. In case no mentor is found within 1 month, Mythdon will be assigned a mentor by ArbCom;

(B) Mythdon should consult and take guidance from the mentor when issues arise concerning their editing or behavior. Inability to work constructively with a mentor may be a sign that a user has continued difficulty in collaborative editing and that stronger sanctions are required; successful editing during the mentorship may demonstrate that the opposite is true;

(C) During mentorship, Mythdon is restricted from making edits such as unnecessary questions and abusive warnings to users' talk pages if not approved by their mentor. The mentor will be asked to assist them in understanding community practice to a sufficient level that continued sanctions will not be necessary.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(D) Mythdon shall not comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about Ryulong on any page in Wikipedia until a mentor is appointed and may only comment after the appointment with his mentor's prior approval.

Passed 8 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Motions[edit]

Motion 1[edit]

Mythdon is placed under conduct probation

Mythdon is placed under conduct probation for one year, in relation to WikiProject Tokusatsu and Ryulong, broadly construed. This includes, but is not limited to, edit warring and failing to appropriately pursue dispute resolution and to show better communication skills. Mythdon will still be restricted from making edits such as unnecessary questions and abusive warnings to users' talk pages.

Passed 6 to 0 at 19:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Motion 2[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Mythdon restricted and placed under mentorship is vacated and the previous motion amended as follows:

Mythdon is banned

Mythdon is banned for a period of six months. At the conclusion of the ban period, Mythdon will be on a six-month conduct probationary period, to run under the current restrictions

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon admonished[edit]

5) 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.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon strongly urged[edit]

6) Mythdon is strongly urged:

(A) To take his specific concerns about the verifiability of the articles to a wider venue such as Wikipedia:Village Pump, other sister WikiProjects or the Verifiability policy talk page itself and consult his views with others. He is then advised to report the views of others to WikiProject Tokusatsu for discussions;

(B) To enhance his level of communication with editors.

Passed 12 to 1 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Participants at the WikiProject Tokusatsu[edit]

7) All participants are advised to work on producing a genuine guideline for the articles falling under the scope of the WikiProject Tokusatsu. They are urged to work in collaboration with Mythdon while seeking outside advice and help.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong and users' identity seeking[edit]

2) Should Ryulong be found to be seeking any user's real life identity, he may be banned from Wikipedia.

Passed 10 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong and IRC[edit]

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.

Passed 11 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Vacated 12 to 0 at 18:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Mythdon mentorship and restrictions[edit]

4) Should Mythdon violate his restriction without him consulting with his mentor or against the will and advice of his mentor, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 3 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 9 to 3 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Conduct probation enforcement[edit]

This enforcement was passed in conjunction with #Motion 1 (July) which was amended by #Motion 2 (September)

See also #New remedies and enforcement added by motion (August)

Any uninvolved administrator may utilize discretionary sanctions, including topic bans and blocks, to enforce this probation. Acting administrators are encouraged to apply sanctions tailored to the circumstances and context. For the purposes of enforcing this measure, any administrator approached directly by Ryulong for enforcement should not act directly. In such a situation, raise both Ryulong's and Mythdon's conduct in normal venues for review.

Passed 6 to 0 at 19:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon and users' identity seeking[edit]

5) Should Mythdon be found to be seeking any user's real life identity, he may be banned from Wikipedia.

Passed 11 to 0 at 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon further restricted (revoked)[edit]

Pursuant to the latest developments related to the recent Arbitration case involving Mythdon and Ryulong and discussions on the Arbitration Committee mailing list, the Arbitration Committee has noted that there has been no changes in the behavior of Mythdon since the closure of the Arbitration case:

a) the user has made no effort whatsoever to find a mentor;

b) the user has made no effort whatsoever to engage himself in serious discussions to produce a guideline for the articles falling under the scope of the Tokusatsu WikiProject as directed by this remedy;

c) the user has targetted another Wikipedia area to impose his stance on verifiability disregarding the ArbCom's view concerning his stance on the matter;

d) He recently threatened to mass AfD articles which do not satisfy his standards in terms of reliable sources and verifiability;

Therefore, the Committee has decided to extend the restrictions imposed in order to facilitate more collaboration in the field of conflict and to ensure the smooth running of the project in general and protect other areas in particular. The terms are as follows:

a) Mythdon is prohibited from partcipating at any Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion discussion which involves verifiability and reliable sources. That includes —and is not limited to— the WikiProject Tokusatsu. The restriction is indefinite pending the production of a guideline. Mythdon —as well as everyone else— should respect the terms of the guideline once it is produced;

b) Mythdon is reminded of the importance of participating in a good faith effort to help produce a genuine guideline for the cited WikiProject, including but not limited to verifiability. He is again urged to start working on this guideline;

c) Mythdon is prohibited from making any comment on reliable sources or verifiability unless comments are made at the talk pages of those guidelines and policies, or at the Tokusatsu WikiProject talk pages;

d) all other restrictions imposed during the arbitration case involving him remain in place;

e) in the light of Mythdon's resignation from the WikiProject, the ArbCom notes that any similar behavior which had led to this situation would be dealt with similarly. Therefore and as a preventive measure, restrictions apply to all WikiProjects;

f) should Mythdon violate the above restrictions, any administrator may block him for a period up to two weeks per incident, escalating to one year per incident after the fifth one. Any discussion about possible violations should be held at requests for arbitration enforcement;

g) any further request on this matter should go through requests for arbitration enforcement beforehand. Administrators there are able to help answer any question.

Added to case by successful motion, passed 8 to 1, 15:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

Revoked and replaced by motion at 06:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC).

Mythdon banned[edit]

Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of six months. At the conclusion of the ban period, Mythdon will be on a six-month conduct probationary period, to run under the current restrictions.

Added to case by successful motion, passed 7 to 0, 00:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC).

Motion (February 2015)[edit]

Enacted with Mythdon's current edit count being 8910. --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 18:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passed 9 to 0 by motion at 06:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Motion: Mythdon restriction lifted (May 2022)[edit]

Passed 9 to 0 by motion at 23:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

• For the reasons explained at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, Mythdon is indefinitely for the duration of his conduct probation prohibited from reverting edits by Ryulong. For the purpose of this sanction, a revert is any action that reverses the actions of Ryulong, in whole or in part.  Sandstein  21:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 05:43, 18 August 2009 Viridae (talk | contribs) blocked Mythdon (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 12 hours ‎ (Arbitration enforcement, reverting edits by Ryulong, general disruptive, combative editing)
• Mythdon (talk · contribs) blocked for two weeks per this report. Steve Smith (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• For the reasons explained at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement], Mythdon shall not directly or indirectly, interact with, or comment about Ryulong, at any time, anywhere on Wikipedia. Mythdon is also topic-banned from editing any page that falls under WikiProject Tokusatsu (including articles), and any discussions relating to those pages, broadly construed. Notification of the interaction ban is here Fritzpoll (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Topic ban from WikiProject Tokusatsu rescinded by motion. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Ryulong strongly cautioned again for using IRC to request administrative action (AE-specific block not issued due to user already being blocked). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]