| Revision as of 21:36, 8 March 2009 editRyulong (talk | contribs)218,132 edits →Response to Ryulongs second statement← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:55, 8 March 2009 edit undoMythdon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers15,405 edits →MoreNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| Mind you all of these reverts and the block were performed after this RFC was filed. If it is clear enough that Ryulong is not going to take these concerns to heart and work on improving his behavior there is no point to it being open and I might as well just file a RFAR. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC) | Mind you all of these reverts and the block were performed after this RFC was filed. If it is clear enough that Ryulong is not going to take these concerns to heart and work on improving his behavior there is no point to it being open and I might as well just file a RFAR. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :I can't completely change '''everything''' I do regarding rollback. I was notified of that IP by Mbisanz because of its edits and it had warnings, so I blocked it. Does it matter that it was for a week? And the only thing that's going to come out of an RFAR on me is me quitting this project.—] (]) 20:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC) | :I can't completely change '''everything''' I do regarding rollback. I was notified of that IP by Mbisanz because of its edits and it had warnings, so I blocked it. Does it matter that it was for a week? And the only thing that's going to come out of an RFAR on me is me quitting this project.—] (]) 20:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::Go ahead, leave the project following an ArbCom filing. That may very well be the solution to all these issues. —<font color="green">]</font> (<font color="teal">]</font> • <font color="teal">]</font>) 21:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Response to Ryulongs second statement == | == Response to Ryulongs second statement == | ||
| Line 11: | Line 12: | ||
| Let me begin by assuming you missed Ottava Rima's call for your head, and decided to go straight for me. What you fail to grasp Ryulong, is that I have absolutely no remorse for an admin who is unwilling to take suggestions and corrective actions upon the communities various objections, outlined in both of these RfC's. But that was before your second response. You only ''now'' say you will try to appease us, and change, but only with a possible arbitration case in the air (yet likely to retire over?). Regardless. You were the party who assumed this RfC might be used for a case, and if my view is endorsed with enough signatures, I will have no problem filing the case myself. But as you should know, this might not happen given that it is not the most popular view at the moment. If this is the case, then so be it. I hold no grudge with you. ''']'''] 20:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC) | Let me begin by assuming you missed Ottava Rima's call for your head, and decided to go straight for me. What you fail to grasp Ryulong, is that I have absolutely no remorse for an admin who is unwilling to take suggestions and corrective actions upon the communities various objections, outlined in both of these RfC's. But that was before your second response. You only ''now'' say you will try to appease us, and change, but only with a possible arbitration case in the air (yet likely to retire over?). Regardless. You were the party who assumed this RfC might be used for a case, and if my view is endorsed with enough signatures, I will have no problem filing the case myself. But as you should know, this might not happen given that it is not the most popular view at the moment. If this is the case, then so be it. I hold no grudge with you. ''']'''] 20:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :There's not much that I can really say to Ottava's statement (I also believe there was a less than cordial meeting between the two of us in the past that I really do not wish to recall through contrib searching at the moment). The rollbacks I do may not be right, but it's often easier to rollback several edits than to go back in the history and see which edits may or may not be in policy. I was not aware (until recently) that removing nonconstructive or unreferenced/unsourced content through rollback would be a content dispute. I've been trying to change my actions, and the edits and blocks pointed out by Tiptoety have most likely the only aberations that fall under this RFC's initial filing. And now with Mythdon's statement, I cannot expect this to go on any further. My patience with him has long been lost as I am painfully aware you will all see if you try to converse with him concerning this RFC.—] (]) 21:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC) | :There's not much that I can really say to Ottava's statement (I also believe there was a less than cordial meeting between the two of us in the past that I really do not wish to recall through contrib searching at the moment). The rollbacks I do may not be right, but it's often easier to rollback several edits than to go back in the history and see which edits may or may not be in policy. I was not aware (until recently) that removing nonconstructive or unreferenced/unsourced content through rollback would be a content dispute. I've been trying to change my actions, and the edits and blocks pointed out by Tiptoety have most likely the only aberations that fall under this RFC's initial filing. And now with Mythdon's statement, I cannot expect this to go on any further. My patience with him has long been lost as I am painfully aware you will all see if you try to converse with him concerning this RFC.—] (]) 21:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::Read my modification of my statement. Hopefully you will. —<font color="green">]</font> (<font color="teal">]</font> • <font color="teal">]</font>) 21:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:55, 8 March 2009
More
I am a bit worried here as Ryulong simply does not seem to get it. Blocks like this are the exact thing this RFC is discussing. A first time block of one week, on a IP editor whom is editing the same subjects as Ryulong is exactly what this RFC is about. Also, I am still noticing that Ryulong is continuing to revert non-vandalism edits such as:
Mind you all of these reverts and the block were performed after this RFC was filed. If it is clear enough that Ryulong is not going to take these concerns to heart and work on improving his behavior there is no point to it being open and I might as well just file a RFAR. Tiptoety 20:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- I can't completely change everything I do regarding rollback. I was notified of that IP by Mbisanz because of its edits and it had warnings, so I blocked it. Does it matter that it was for a week? And the only thing that's going to come out of an RFAR on me is me quitting this project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Go ahead, leave the project following an ArbCom filing. That may very well be the solution to all these issues. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Response to Ryulongs second statement
Let me begin by assuming you missed Ottava Rima's call for your head, and decided to go straight for me. What you fail to grasp Ryulong, is that I have absolutely no remorse for an admin who is unwilling to take suggestions and corrective actions upon the communities various objections, outlined in both of these RfC's. But that was before your second response. You only now say you will try to appease us, and change, but only with a possible arbitration case in the air (yet likely to retire over?). Regardless. You were the party who assumed this RfC might be used for a case, and if my view is endorsed with enough signatures, I will have no problem filing the case myself. But as you should know, this might not happen given that it is not the most popular view at the moment. If this is the case, then so be it. I hold no grudge with you. Synergy 20:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- There's not much that I can really say to Ottava's statement (I also believe there was a less than cordial meeting between the two of us in the past that I really do not wish to recall through contrib searching at the moment). The rollbacks I do may not be right, but it's often easier to rollback several edits than to go back in the history and see which edits may or may not be in policy. I was not aware (until recently) that removing nonconstructive or unreferenced/unsourced content through rollback would be a content dispute. I've been trying to change my actions, and the edits and blocks pointed out by Tiptoety have most likely the only aberations that fall under this RFC's initial filing. And now with Mythdon's statement, I cannot expect this to go on any further. My patience with him has long been lost as I am painfully aware you will all see if you try to converse with him concerning this RFC.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Read my modification of my statement. Hopefully you will. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)