Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:19, 6 February 2014

When I find that the conversations or issues discussed here have either ended or resolved, they will be inserted into my archives at my own discretion.—Ryūlóng

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 Misplaced Pages: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

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)

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)

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 /_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)

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

Blocking administrator: Georgewilliamherbert (talk)

Reviewing administrator: Discussing with blocking admin. v/r - TP 06:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Request reason:

After the blocking administrator has left a comment, do one of the following:

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with any specific rationale. If you do not edit the text after "decline=", a default reason why the request was declined will be inserted.

{{unblock reviewed|1=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)|decline={{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed|1=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)|accept=Accept reason here ~~~~}}

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 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)

• Unblock on hold