This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Synergy (talk | contribs) at 20:40, 8 March 2009 (→Response to Ryulongs second statement: typo demon; no Durova). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:40, 8 March 2009 by Synergy (talk | contribs) (→Response to Ryulongs second statement: typo demon; no Durova)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)
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)