http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...tration#Ryulong

Ryulong might be going to arbitration

Another Kabbalist with a Kount of 33, and an awesome 268 shared mainspace articles with Jayjg. A particularly nasty piece of work.

Here's the 33 articles edited with Jayjg, Jpgordon, and SlimVirgin. Notice any theme?


#1 Yasser_Arafat - edited by 4 of 4 users
#2 World_War_I - edited by 4 of 4 users
#3 Wikipedia - edited by 4 of 4 users
#4 The_Holocaust - edited by 4 of 4 users
#5 Terrorism - edited by 4 of 4 users
#6 Taliban - edited by 4 of 4 users
#7 Steven_Spielberg - edited by 4 of 4 users
#8 September_11_attacks - edited by 4 of 4 users
#9 Self-hating_Jew - edited by 4 of 4 users
#10 Saddam_Hussein - edited by 4 of 4 users
#11 Racism - edited by 4 of 4 users
#12 Osama_bin_Laden - edited by 4 of 4 users
#13 Nazism - edited by 4 of 4 users
#14 Nazi_Germany - edited by 4 of 4 users
#15 Mein_Kampf - edited by 4 of 4 users
#16 List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations - edited by 4 of 4 users
#17 Lebanon - edited by 4 of 4 users
#18 Judaism - edited by 4 of 4 users
#19 Jew_Watch - edited by 4 of 4 users
#20 Jew - edited by 4 of 4 users
#21 Jerusalem - edited by 4 of 4 users
#22 Holocaust_denial - edited by 4 of 4 users
#23 Hobo - edited by 4 of 4 users
#24 Grigori_Rasputin - edited by 4 of 4 users
#25 God - edited by 4 of 4 users
#26 Christianity - edited by 4 of 4 users
#27 British_National_Party - edited by 4 of 4 users
#28 Berlin_Wall - edited by 4 of 4 users
#29 Arnold_Schwarzenegger - edited by 4 of 4 users
#30 Antisemitism - edited by 4 of 4 users
#31 American_Jews - edited by 4 of 4 users
#32 Al-Qaeda - edited by 4 of 4 users
#33 Adolf_Hitler - edited by 4 of 4 users

I remember another thread here they found Crum375 was this Jewish person who came from Israel, did WTC or whatever, and now is tag-team controlling all these articles related to Israel.

If they weren't admins and cabal members they would be all banned long ago as each other's socks.

All his edits to these article that I examined were either vandalism reverts or otherwise minor and uncontroversial (e.g. category sorting). He has only 6 talk pages in common with the big three, and half of them (Talk:Wikipedia, Talk:Main Page, and Talk:September_11_attacks) are too high-profile to be significant. I think this is a false positive stemming from Ryulong's vandal patrolling: his main area of interest, where he actually does substantive editing, would seem to be the Power Rangers and similar garbage.

You are listing them in reverse alphabetical order?

Probably intended as a form of satanic back-masking.

Interesting. Thanks for checking. We've seen some "false positives" before due to Huggle and people who edit everywhere. This is the first I've seen for somebody who did manual reversions. If not with Huggle, the question is why do they have these particular articles in their watchlist anyway?





No, they just come out of the Wikistalk common-articles-edited tool that way (reverse alphabetized). Don't ask me why.

http://toolserver.org/~bjweeks/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py

Could be recent change patrolling.

No, for I did Ryulong's Kabbal Kount before Huggle got going. This is not the first time.

Ryulong is an unfathomably rotten prick and is among the bottom of the barrel, as far as administrator temperament and professionalism are concerned.

Also, he's really into..... Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers. For some reason, that a purported college student is consumed by the brave deeds of the white ranger in 13th season is just.... creepy.

Anyway, note Ryulong's hilariously reasoned reaction when a wiki-peon has the temerity to nominate one of his beloved Power Rangers articles for deletion.

Speaking of creepy administrators, even FT2 agrees with me that this guy is no good. Check out the IRC log that FT2 links to on his user page. I miss that Videmus Omnia character....

I think you misunderstood me; I'm not talking about Huggle.

I could not have said it better. Ryulong is power drunk little boy child, with delusions of grandeur and a true sociopath, in need of shock treatments. Ryulong's hatred for those that call him to task is a legend.

This manboy should be lockup in a nuthatch for the criminally insane.


Update... for some reasons why I think Rulong is need of being locked in a nuthatch some intresting links

Ryulong on deviant art

Can you get a feed of recent changes to the entire encyclopedia, as though all articles were on your private watchlist? Isn't that sort of like trying to drink from the proverbial firehose? How could you do it without automation?

Like this.

(I personally never use this page; I can think of few things more mind-numbing. But for whatever reason, a lot of editors seem to enjoy "recent change patrolling".)

It is called that more as a relic to the past than what actually happens. It is useful for feeding into programs like Huggle. On other less busy wikis, it's much more usable generally.

Oh Jeeezus Christ. After TWO YEARS of Ryulong's bullshit, after endless examples of his abuse of rollback and rangeblocking,
after his being dragged to RFC or RFAR at least three times before (that I can find and there may be more)......

We get a new RFAR, full of the same old apathy, brown-nosing, cowardice and backpedaling.
Oh golly. Such fun.

Ryulong is EXCELLENT PROOF that adminship should have a limited time period.
It's just about time to can his ass.

If WP were well-run and well-designed, there would be no need for obsessive vandal patrolling.
Admit it, he's a (dubiously) necessary evil. This "project" would be better off without an admin who
loves to destroy people and is obsessed with Power Rangers. He's not worth the trouble.

Ryulong appears to find Kamen Rider a compelling and fascinating topic. In response to my question in that thread, Ryulong quotes the policy stating that reliable sources aren't necessary for articles on fictional subjects. My first impulse was to ask, "Why would you want to write an article on a fictional subject?"

I don't know, I guess fictional subjects are part of the artistic areas of this world which help enrich the lives of us humans. As far as Kamen Rider goes, though, I neglected to pay it any further attention once my son stopped watching it when he was about six years old.

Apparently WP needs infantile OCD'ers to patrol infantile OCD spawned articles. And Ryulong is just the manchild for that. At least he's not gone postal on Miami U and is just going postal on WP.

As part of a RfA, and what should be an annual Sanity Check (literally), WP should give a short 10 question psyche profile quizzer to these folks. You'll probably find from those that a significant % of WP admins are nutters.

I'm guessing he deleted some stuff from his DeviantArt page...? Or is the trash can with eyeballs on it supposed to be sufficient evidence of nuttery?

I'd steal it for the avatar gallery, but... naaaah!

Daw... I didn't think you guys still cared.

Yes, son, we do care. We care to see you desysopped.

Shut off your damned computer, go out and find a girlfriend or something.

The idea sounds nice but after a minute or two spend pondering it in a comfort station, one starts to see the problems:

(a) there would be even more teenage admins as most older ones would be already dehammered.
(b) the scum admins would most probably try to get a sock account sysoped shortly before the two year time limit.

The end result would be WP would have only teens and/or psychopaths as its admins.


(Caveat: some of you may claim it's already true)

By the way, I think it's perfectly fine to have an article about the show Kamen Rider, but why have separate articles about each of the fictional characters in the show?

Why not?

That's right. You tell them. I don't really know who "Kamen Rider" is, or what he wants, but I suspect there's a huge undercurrent of mystery and homoeroticism there, which is fine by me (being a modern man, and all that). Ryulong - rhymes with "dong", right?

I don't know jack about this show either but it does seem to have a huge cult following. I remember Sean Black was really into it and nobody thought he was nuts.

I know a lot of folks here have issues with Ryulong but I don't why do you have to give him shit about the one thing he does that can't possibly be affecting you.

Indeed it does. But you've mis-spelled "cult".

Well, Lottso, as I've said before (I think) the whole point is to just enjoy yourself. That's what Wikipedo Review is all about. For me, anyway. Hugs.

The case has now been opened by MBisanz. I'm currently neutral in regards to the case, but at first I didn't think it was going to get accepted: instead it has nine arbitrators supporting and none opposing.

I'll think I'll watch the case: I'm interested in how in turns out.

Well as I said in my statement, he's been a problem since the beginning, and should never have even been made an admin.

Funnily enough, Ryulong 3 was the first RfA I ever participated in (support). I've often speculated that, had Ryulong gone on to have a fourth RfA (rather than had the third closed at 68% as successful), it's possible that the RfCs and the current arbitration case now opened regarding his tool use and conduct wouldn't be happening, as he would have taken on board what would have led to RfA#3 being unsuccessful, and would be a much better administrator. Unfortunately, we won't know. I dunno...maybe I'm being too generous here.

For the record, does anyone remember what Raul654's rationale for closing that RfA as successful was?

Because fictional subjects don't require reliable sources, which means that they don't have to pass the "notability" and other standards. For example, the article about the Gel-shocker fictional organization from the show lists as it's sole source some fan's website. Obviously, that would never pass for a non-fictional topic. It's ridiculously amateurish. To be fair, you didn't start that article and have apparently made only one edit to it, but don't you think that articles like that one are an embarrassment to Wikipedia?

Something like "I spoke to him a bit on IRC, and I think he's a good guy".

Really? Wow...I remember the anger WJBscribe got for promoting ^demon at 63%. At least his rationale for granting adminship in that case wasn't something along the lines of "I like this user".

Here's the quotation from Raul654:


Hilarity ensues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...t_69.4.25.21.3F Renesis is especially vocal for his/her outrage.


Raul654 clarifies:


Contrary to Majorly's fuzzy memory of the incident, Raul654 did not say he conversed with Ryulong on IRC about the RFA. He did say:


One other comment from that discussion, by Somitho, bears repeating here:


Prophetic?

What a perfect example of Raul's arrogant, corrupt and power-mongering personality.

Can we get an RFAR against him for once?

Well-deserved, but pointless. It would go nowhere. He holds way too much power and ArbCom wouldn't do jack to him. That's why you haven't seen a case against him.

Perhaps because no one has bothered to. If people got up of their arse to make a case instead of coming here to spend their lives whining about how x admin is a bitch and ruined my life etc etc then we'd get a lot more done.

What species of people are these that have to share a single arse?

Perhaps yourself?

Just a thought......

If the two of you could bear to take that time you're using to insult each other, and
log into WP and file an RFAR against Raul, I suspect you might have some minor success.
At very least, you'd probably get more satisfaction from embarrassing Pellegrini than from
this pissing contest.

It's not as if there's a shortage of evidence to use against the bastard.

I hesitate to take this seriously, but the prospect of arbitration reminds me of my very first post on WR in connection with Raul654's wrong block on CreepyCrawly. Some of the wiki evidence is preserved here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cre...ion_from_Shalom

If even after my last efforts on that page I would still not have secured CreepyCrawly's unblock, my next stop might have been arbitration.

I checked Raul654's block log and he's still blocking sockpuppets of Scibaby. I'm not sure what impresses me more, Scibaby's persistence in disrupting Wikipedia or Raul's persistence in defending it. Some months ago Raul said he was done fighting this battle because his BOLD full protection of global warming articles didn't stand up to community opposition, but he's still fighting that battle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...long_desysopped

Grab your popcorn.

If it takes 4 votes and he has 4, does this mean that's it, so long as nobody comes in and opposes?

That will be another classical nasty Kabbalist down. Ryulong's score is 33:

#1 Yasser_Arafat - edited by 4 of 4 users
#2 World_War_I - edited by 4 of 4 users
#3 Wikipedia - edited by 4 of 4 users
#4 The_Holocaust - edited by 4 of 4 users
#5 Terrorism - edited by 4 of 4 users
#6 Taliban - edited by 4 of 4 users
#7 Steven_Spielberg - edited by 4 of 4 users
#8 September_11_attacks - edited by 4 of 4 users
#9 Self-hating_Jew - edited by 4 of 4 users
#10 Saddam_Hussein - edited by 4 of 4 users
#11 Racism - edited by 4 of 4 users
#12 Osama_bin_Laden - edited by 4 of 4 users
#13 Nazism - edited by 4 of 4 users
#14 Nazi_Germany - edited by 4 of 4 users
#15 Mein_Kampf - edited by 4 of 4 users
#16 List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations - edited by 4 of 4 users
#17 Lebanon - edited by 4 of 4 users
#18 Judaism - edited by 4 of 4 users
#19 Jew_Watch - edited by 4 of 4 users
#20 Jew - edited by 4 of 4 users
#21 Jerusalem - edited by 4 of 4 users
#22 Holocaust_denial - edited by 4 of 4 users
#23 Hobo - edited by 4 of 4 users
#24 Grigori_Rasputin - edited by 4 of 4 users
#25 God - edited by 4 of 4 users
#26 Christianity - edited by 4 of 4 users
#27 British_National_Party - edited by 4 of 4 users
#28 Berlin_Wall - edited by 4 of 4 users
#29 Arnold_Schwarzenegger - edited by 4 of 4 users
#30 Antisemitism - edited by 4 of 4 users
#31 American_Jews - edited by 4 of 4 users
#32 Al-Qaeda - edited by 4 of 4 users
#33 Adolf_Hitler - edited by 4 of 4 users

One more rumble of the powershift.

PS: what's with Rlevse's concern about Ryulong having "rollback"? Again, is rollback not simply the same as picking an old version you like, clicking "edit," and saving it? There's gotta be something I don't understand. Would the universe collapse if Ryulong could (or could not) continue to do that?

Well, not "picking an old version" - rollback automatically brings you back to the version before the most recent editor started editing it. As for why it's allegedly a big deal, you don't get the chance to put in an edit summary for it, which means that it's only supposed to be used for bad faith stuff; anybody operating in good faith is supposed to be entitled to an explanation of why you're undoing their edits. That's the theory, anyway.

Okay, so why a software program that WON'T let you save with edit summary "RVV, "or "Welcome to Wikipedia!". Was rollback DESIGNED to make people angry? You can always go back and save an earlier verion withou an edit summary if you WANT to. Does "rollback" add "neener, neener, you vandal putz!"

If this why Rlevse fears Ryulong might not be able to use it any more?

Because it's faster; adding the intermediate phase where the edit summary field appears would slow it down.

Couldn't they have the edit summary auto-add "Welcome to Wikipedia!" ? It's polite and mildly sarcastic. What's not to like?

it is looking like ryulong is gonna get what he requires. Fucked off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...long_desysopped

Rlevse is talking about taking away Ryulong's rollback privilege for 6 months. Oh, the inhumanity! Is there no revenge too great! It's cruel. It's unusual. It's really..... wierd.

Speaking of weirdnesses, here is ArbComm Love Potion #9:

Blocking
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.

Support:
FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
FloNight♥♥♥ 09:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Vassyana (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

===================================

If Arbcom does not make policy, what is all the wanking above, about? What is there to "support" or "oppose," if the principle is already written down someplace (which I believe it is) and Arbcom can't change it? Why not just refer to it by title and statute or something? And say they're putting it down because they think it applies to a violation of it by User:NumbNuts, or something. Which I think is actually the point of the above, but I cannot be sure, because it's written in Wikipedian-- a language I'm not fluent in, and which Bablefish won't handle.