I make it a habit to wikistalk Ryulong. Not that often, but every week or two I go through his logged actions. I saw this.

20:06, 14 October 2007 Ryulong (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Alyssalover" ‎ (WP:NOT#WEBSPACE (User is also sysop at Galician, but has not editted there since April 2006))

It was one of a series of him bullying people by deleting their userpage. But though, he deleted a sysop's userpage because the sysop was inactive.

So then of course, Ryulong needs to go to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians and delete the userpages of everyone in there. How long until he does it?

Many of the people in Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians haven't edited since 2005 and 2004. A few haven't edited since 2003. One person in there says....

"MichaelTinkler (talk • contribs • count) - last edit: 2 Sep 2002."

And yet he still has his userpage!



Hey, let's make Ryulong sysop on commons and meta and delete all the inactive people's userpages. That constitutes about 99.99% of every userpage on commons and meta.

Ryulong was told by other administrators to stop this, wasn't he? Why has he resumed?

Long ago, I read a proposal at the Village Pump (I think) in which after 6 months of inactivity, a WP account would be deleted (or was it blocked?). Needless to say, the proposal didn't pass.

Well Danny came by and supported the idea so it's now popular.

Ryulong is like the kid at the beach that kicks over your sandcastle. Danny, too.

I frankly fail to see the point in doing it...?

Gives him something to do with his admin powers. Ryulong - why not do something useful, like unblock Zordrac? Nobody would overturn you.

I like the renamed subtitle "Where's Ryulong when you need him?"

I really'd love to see Ryulong delete the userpages of everyone in Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians who hasn't edited since 2005 or earlier.

You really need to find something better to do with your time other than scan through my logs and contributions for things that you perceive as questionable. Alyssalover has been inactive, and I saw an edit to her page by a user who may be a sockpuppet of another user that I read up on one of the noticeboards.

And the flack comes from blocking the user in question, not deleting their userpage which would save server space if they're not using it. Honestly, you, Lamont, are the only one who ever complains about these minor things (possibly because I deleted your userpage because you've never used it in a years time, either).

Am I truly worth this time, effort, and memory on the WR servers, bringing up this shit day in and day out?

If you calculated the "savings" in terms of server space you achieved, you would appear to be the person who needs to find something better to do.

What exactly is your personal policy on this? If a person goes a certain length of time without editing, their user page gets deleted? Or is it more narrow than that, only a certain type of former editor is subject to it? I don't see how saving an infinitesimal amount of server space can be worth turning off someone who may be thinking of returning to WP.

Yes, we see how concerned you are about saving server space.


LOL !!!

Jonny

This is pretty much the only necessary part to quote as to what my response to you would be. Imagine that - you stop actively making the project worse, and people will stop bitching about you. Novel concept, really.

Here are a couple of links to accompany Lamont's original post:

Ryulong deleted this user page for being inactive.


But as of yet hasn't deleted this user page.


Why? We haven't had any kind of serious explanation for this. One can only presume at this stage that the deletions of certain user pages and not other user pages are out of spite? Perhaps Ryulong could delete MichaelTinkler's user page to assure us this isn't the case?

It's a poordood's measure of MY PRECIOUS Server Space, but the raw text on MichaelTinkler's user page weighs in at 1366 Ascii chars.

Ryulong's egomaniac signature uses 133 chars — not counting the extra bytes that it takes to code the Japanese-Chinese charcters:


A default signature for Ryulong would take just 53 chars:


That's a savings of more than 133 – 53 = 80 bytes if Ryulong would just switch to default signatures.

Which means that MichaelTinkler's ka-body could be saved by sacrificing the excess ego of just 1366/80 = 17 of Ryulong's talk page edits.

Jonny

It's not saving server space. Deleted content stays there on the servers.

Yes, we all know that. We're just playing ulong with Ryulong's absurd rationalizations.

Jonny

How about this then:
I randomly come across users who have been inactive, yet their userpages are up. I deleted a couple. If their only contribution was to create their userpage, I delete it.

Now, for the one user that you've brought up, I guess I'm not deleting it out of spite.

But is deleting that one userpage, as badlydrawnjeff is putting it, actively making the project worse, or is this just all a nitpicking at what you think isn't acceptible, but there's nothing codified against it.

Sure it doesn't save that much server space (it was a spur of the moment defense before), but if someone has not done anything for a year or more except randomly add stuff to their userpage, and fix a spelling error or two at the same time, is there any reason that the userpage needs to be there, or need not be there?

Worse - deletions waste space by making the deletion logs bigger.

So your pretty much a mean spirited meddling bully?

Really, δøøδs & δøøδesses, the level of so-called reasoning that we see exhibited here is bringing discredit on that fine Floridian University that Ryulog indicts on his user page, and I would not be surprised if they sue him for defamation of character one day not too far off.

Of course, I still think that the EYOOC (Eight Year Old On Crack) hypothesis is far more likely.

Jonny

Yes, and if you then consider the bandwidth used to make the deletion..

I'm just wondering why Ryulong wastes his time doing stupid shit really.

If I went on vacation and found someone deleted my user page for being inactive, I would not be pleased with the deleting administrator.

I don't think the Foundation is in any danger of losing server space. Deleting someone's user page to save server space is a poor excuse. 99% of Wikipedians are those that might get an account, log in once in a while, and maybe correct something. Some may only make one contribution and then leave. You are not giving these people an incentive to continue contributing. You and Danny are in effect declaring war against the majority of Wikipedians.

This is not a "minor" matter. The fact that you consider those like CattleGirl and Alyssalover to not be useful indicates to me that you are an elitist with no respect for the vast majority of Wikipedians who are the real backbone of WP, not regulars like you. You are ruining the community aspect of WP and, if your behavior does not change, the community will reject you.

You have not taken to heart the advice more experienced Wikipedians have given you. It takes a lynch mob on your talk page just to get you to listen and then you go ahead continuing your spree despite other administrators' and other Wikipedians' admonishments.

Your arrogance, Ryulong, will be your downfall.

I had this very eloquent reply set up, and then the network went down, so here's the Cliff's Notes.

Honestly, if Alyssalover were to start editting again tomorrow, I'd undelete the userpage, or if someone said to me, on Wikipedia, that I should. But here, I can't take any sort of constructive criticism from a thread that starts out with "I [LamontStormstar] make it a habit to wikistalk Ryulong." The Cattlegirl thing was a major fuckup, and I realized that then and I realize it now (in fact, only one editor was actively trying to get me banhammered, because I acted with tact). In this case, I have only deleted a userpage of a user who has had absolutely no edits (not just no article edits or just userpage edits) for an entire year. I did not block, because I know better. To reiterate, I don't see any conversation occurring here seriously changing my mind about how I act on a completely different website. People here start threads when Jimbo scratches his ass in a strange way. If you want me to change, give me suggestions on the website where you perceive my activity is a problem, not attack my discretion off of it.

Change you? Good heavens no. Your a major component of Hasten the Day.

Jayjg, SlimVirgin, and Matanmoreland are "inactive" now (LOL). Why don't you give their pages a whack, champ?

And just how is the baseless sockpuppet banning business going, liarboy?

If it isn't you (or your chums), why do you feel the need to bring it up and complain about it here?

Probably because you (and SlimVirgin before you) don't know how to properly apologise or make any other amends whatsoever for using the "sock puppet of [convenient target here] " as a complete lie in an admin action.

And it was me in your mix. Remember the "onamoto is a piperdown sockpuppet" business? You did that.

That's why, among several reasons that people with ethical standards abhor what you and many of WP admins are running amok with personal grudges and agendas.

I do it here because a$$holes of WP like the Virgin, Senor Moreland, and you made sure that people who call out this sort of BS get banned from WP. And yes, that is a "personal attack" of an anonymous pseudonym, lol.

Wait, who wanted you banned? I doubt anybody wants you banned. I think you're as awful an admin as they come, but probably wouldn't hurt anything as long as you had the tools taken away. Let me also point out that many people here cannot say anything to you on WP because they are banned from it, and many of the others would be promptly banned by you or someone like you if they decided to "troll" your talk page by making a request. Although I fall into neither category, and I want you to undelete her page, I will not be so silly as to pretend that you are a different person there and cannot act on what you read here. You clearly have acted on things posted here before--you deleted Lamont's userpage because he posts here--yet whether you can recognize a sensible argument depends not on the argument itself but on where it is made?

Seriously, Mr. Ryulong, I don't believe you're giving any consideration to the psychological effects of this sort of action on your part. It isn't just the user whose user page is deleted - that's bad enough - it's everyone who notices it, and who thinks "OMFG, I can't leave WP for any significant period of time before someone will come along and try to negate me, and try to make it look like I was never here." That holds true (to some extent) even if the "deleted" user has only made one or two edits. Deleting user pages simply because of inactivity is just bad for business, and makes Wikipedia a more unpleasant site to be associated with, which is why I support you in this endeavor wholeheartedly.

I mean, obviously the server-space argument is bogus. Deleting a page doesn't actually delete anything from the server's hard drive, and as Guy points out, it adds a record to the deletion log, so it actually uses more space... One might argue that a userpage blanking would at least reduce the amount of bandwidth used to view that page, but a deletion causes a new-page form to be generated when people click on it, and that usually involves a lookup, so you gain nothing. And either way, it's like saying that sterilizing a gram of water and then dribbling it into the ocean will make the ocean "just that much cleaner."

Anyway, it just looks bad. Public relations, man! Just because you're an aspiring chemist or whatever doesn't mean you can blow that shit off. It's an integral part of the world we live in, I'm afraid.

I think that this was probably LamontStormStar's best post for at least a month here. While he does start with "I make it a habit to Wikistalk Ryulong", he later indicates that it is merely using Wikipedia's rather obscure definition of "wikistalking" and that he isn't really advocating RL stalking. I hope so at least! As we have seen from several case examples, most of the people who were banned from Wikipedia for wikistalking didn't do anything other than to correct errors. Whilst of course people engaging in actual cyberbullying, like for example Antaeus Feldspar, Malber, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters and Snowspinner, seem to be able to do it day in and day out and nothing ever happens (sure, Malber was banned, but not because of that).

Anyway, the thing is that yes, this is petty, but it is a technical issue.

IF AND ONLY IF by deleting something it actually deleted the content from the servers, then deleting a user page would be useful. The only other rationale for deleting it to save space is to save bandwidth because people aren't looking at it as often - however how many people would be looking at the user page anyway? Ergo it is a faulty argument.

No, this is not a hugely big deal. Why are we wasting our time even discussing it? But in turn why is Ryulong wasting his time even bothering to delete it?

Yes, Ryulong has a point. Why not delete all inactive users? Fair enough, he's right, he's on policy. But doesn't he have anything better to do than to do this kind of thing? Its not helpful, and that user would probably feel more inclined to contribute positively to Wikipedia if their userpage wasn't randomly deleted like that.

As for WR wasting our own server bandwidth on this, well, actually we pay for a certain bandwidth and space, and right now we are using about 3% of it, hence we are actually wasting space by NOT having discussions about this.

But that's getting technical.

Well well RYulong, the wiki apologists who emerges from the wikiswamp of lies and deceit.

I want to let you know, YOUR and your bud GAMAIEL's BULLSHIT IS PERSONAL.
I"m so tired of the wikipeida's BULLSHIT and Arrogant Miscreants and Sociopathic nutters
who have dominion over the reputation of real people...YOU THINK THIS A GAME, SPORT.
YOU DON'T have the Smarts given to cockroaches to know this is serious with consequences.

GO TELL YOUR NUTTER Buddy GAMALIEL (ROB) I HOLD HIM PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for
his actions as well as I hold U <POINT MY FINGER TO YOU > RESPONSIBLE AS WELL.

I'm now work at lobbying every one I meet and tell them about you and how wikipeida is
danger to all.

If it takes me 40 years I will find ever opportunity to lift my leg and piss on Wikpeida becasue
it is EVIL.

YOU CREATED ME AND MY HATRED FOR THE LIEING SACKS OF SHITS THaT RUN WIKPEDIA...

YOU, and YOUR BUDS, I HOLD RESPONSIBLE for it. I WILL NEVER GIVE UP...

I am planning some surprises for wiki right now... YOU WILL PAY....

I didn't understand a word of it!

Howzabout I put it this-a-way. You can delete a hundred, maybe a thousand, maybe ten thousand user pages for users who have been inactive for a year, two years, whatever. All well and good - if you're lucky, nobody will care, and while there are obviously people who will notice, you might still get away with it, FWIW.

But it only takes one user-page deletion to give Wikipedia a black eye, if the "deleted" user happens to be a journalist, an author, a media personality, or someone else with enough juice to get something published about how they were "excised" or "disappeared" by the "Wikipedia teen censorship brigade." And people are going to see that and think, "this could happen to me, if I should be dumb enough to participate in their little power-game scenario."

And forgetting about those silly diskspace/bandwidth "savings" arguments for the time being, what does Wikipedia as a community gain by deleting those pages, really? A bunch of red links, that's what. Woo hoo.

LMAO...... THAT RIGHT...THE BIGGER THE DQUE's and lieing shits RYulong AND HIS Kameraden are , The MORE WIKIPDIA LOSES MONEY, MIND SHARE, TRAFFIC AND CREDITABILITY.

I have'nt thought of that ... thats very interesting...


BTW this is ME (JOE) <~~~~~ on you (Gamaliel/Rulong)

YOU and your kind <Rulong/Gamaliel> ARE Untermensch


SINCE YOU ARE RIGHT NOW ON... RULONG I CALL YOU A COWARD AND LIAR.
AND A BOLD FACE HYPOCRITE to YOUR FACE!!. <THROWING MY GLOVE TO YOU FEET>.

God. It's just a page deletion. It's not like the user, who hasn't even touched a Wikimedia project in at minimum a year is going to come back, see their page deleted, and then feel like they've got to go cut themselves because their userpage got deleted.

Oh, and the page has since been restored after I asked for input from someone who isn't out to hate the Wikimedia Foundation because of their obsession on particular senators, mathematicians, popular singers, stock selling techniques, personal business ventures, et al. for all the banned here.

When you delete a page or revision, mediawiki moves the revision links from the main revision table to either the archive table (for normal deletions) or the oversight table (for oversight). Those are just links to revisions. The text itself still remains in the same place, the text table mw_text.

To get rid of the text, a developer has to run a query on the text. But they'd just get all the text of deleted and oversighted revisions. They could run a query based on deleted revisions that are over a year old to delete them, but they wouldn't know if something had been deleted a year ago or a second ago. To find stuff that's been deleted say over a year ago, would require a huge referencing through the logs table (mw_logging I think) and matching up deletion based on deletion date and it would be really complicated and likely tie up the servers for 12 hours in maintenance going through it all.





So you despise honesty. Most people use a colorful euphamism for digging through someone else's contributions and logs. I accused people of wikistalking for this sort of thing and since I despise hypocrisy, I attributed the same term to my actions.

I guess truth and accuracies gets in the way of making wiki sausage.

YOU, know as well as I DO you and YOU Sociopathic admins spend most of the
time sock hunting and POV PUSHING... IT's YOU and YOUR KIND thats controlling
content, the experts that would have the most to contribute have been push out of wikipeida because they won't kiss your ass...

YOU are your kind or the reason for wikipeida DIEing ... and IT IS DIEING...


YOU are a HYPOCRITE, a censor of truth... and PUSHER OF LIES...

Looking through people's contributions and logs and often checking up on them is common on wikipedia and probably other wikis. Some people call it wikistalking. I probably half so I said I did, too. Point is, often you just meet someone or someone sees you and wonders what is up with your edits and poof they're asking you about something way back in your edit history.

Not only that, I've seen a lot where the checkusers on wikipedia will wikistalk accounts based on IP. Well I found a Tor node on Wikipedia that wasn't blocked and I made two accounts on it before Tor switched IPs on me. On one, I made a comment on some talk page that was harmless and nobody would see. I then made a second account and used it to criticize an admin. A checkuser then came by and reverted the admin criticism and banned the account and then the checkuser went and stalked the IP and in under a minute on the checkuser's next edit, they reverted the harmless comment that the earlier one made, banning that account as "troll" when it made some harmless comment. I don't remember the details as it was last December or so





I forgot what I said exactly, but I think I asked him to delete all the really old ones in Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. I really would like him to do that. It would be fun!

And you learned what from that, exactly?

WP:PROD

The only exceptions to this rule are pages in the User and User talk namespaces which may be proposed for deletion if the user has no recent edits and has made few or no contributions to the encyclopedia.

No, it does not apply to WP:MW, as they have made significant contributions to the encyclopedia. Seriously, kids, Ryulong is the messenger here, why are we shooting him to death? Go blame the PROD policy for sanctioning this.

Sigh, I don't know why I bother, but maybe just this one more time …

This is just one more example of how Wikipediots destroy the founding principles of the whole wiki paradigm.

The thing that justifies the evanescence of the present state of the wiki is its preservation of an Easily Viewable Akashic Record (EVAR).

It's not EVAR of it takes a court order to see it.

Jonny

I think this bears repeating.

As Kamryn said: Deleting their userpage would not save server space. Deleted content is never truly deleted. To claim otherwise is ignorance of how MediaWiki works. I find that claim to be laughable coming from a Wikipedia admin - no offense, Ryulong, but you should really know better. If he isn't willing to take the time to learn how things work, maybe Ryulong shouldn't be an admin and maybe he should find something else to do.

As Lamont said: The only way to truly delete deleted content is to run a SQL query and delete the content from the SQL tables.

Deleted content doesn't save any space at all. Not "it doesn't save much", it saves none. Period. None. Zilch. Zip. No matter what, the content is still there, just moved from one place to the other. Even oversighted edits are still visible to developers.

If absent users' userpages were somehow dangerous to Wikipedia, I might advocate deleting them but those pages are only taking up filespace, deleted or not - and Wikipedia is certainly not in need of filespace. Those users haven't done anything wrong, so the best thing to do is to leave them alone. Why bother harassing innocent users (and deleting someone's userpage is harassment enough).

If I were still a user in good standing and I went on vacation only to find my userpage deleted, I wouldn't be at all happy and you can bet I'd be demanding answers and obviously AGF wouldn't factor into it.

Grandma, Eggs.
Eggs, Grandma.

Jonny B)

* edit by Nathan: small wording correction in my last post, so I've fixed it here too.

Please read this a little more carefully. The context is the WP:PROD policy. It thus clearly means that it can be proposed for deletion under this policy, which means placing a template on the page; after seven days someone else, not the person who place t he template may delete it. This rule does not allow an admin to be judge and jury and delete it instantly.

Close reading wins arguments. Nice work, Guy.

Ryulong is being petty by deleting the page.

We are being petty by discussing it.

None of this is a big deal.

But technically, we are right to criticise him. After all, it hurts newbies, makes people feel bad, and is pointless.

Technically, Ryulong is right too. After all, technically you are not meant to keep a user page when you are no longer there.

Technically, Ryulong is a hypocrite

If Ryulong deleted the userpages of everyone in Missing Wikipedians who hasn't edited for over a year based on WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, or at least a bunch of the userpages, then he would really have my respect.

I don't see this as being petty as it is part of a larger pattern of abuse committed by this renegade administrator.

Who's to define "left?" You cannot "leave" a website. You just stop contributing. The Right to Vanish thing's become a joke as many do resume editing again not long after saying they've left.

This is part of vindictiveness on Ryulong's part. But as I've mentioned on the other Ryulong thread, he's not going to change unless other prominent Wikipedians threaten him to change. He won't change otherwise.

He still won't change, he'll just promise to and then continue doing what he likes when people back off.

Even if they stop one bad person on Wikipedia, there's thousands more and even more than that ready to take their place.

That's what I've been saying in a sense. Ryulong is a case study of an abusive administrator.

And who's to stop him from abandoning the Ryulong account and pulling a Hoopydink/Gaillamh or H/Until (1==2)? Nothing! No accountability and no ethics! Its a major problem that WP has not resolved.