User talk:Ryulong/Archive4

This is an archive page, last updated 3 August 2015. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>

, (new)(back)

Vandal-binning Naqoyqatsi

You already know this, but vandal binning and blocking people as vengeance for arguing with you is not cool mmmmkay? Get over yourself, etc... etc... I've taken Naqoyqatsi out of vandal bin. Tielec01 (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

He's a concern troll who has done nothing on this website but be a cock to me. Stop enabling him. Stop letting him make ad hominem attacks at me and using the wiki to spread lies and slander about people, only protected because it's a talk page and RationalWiki doesn't evict concern trolls.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Asshole? Yes. Vandal or edit warrior? Nope. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{We exist in different epistemological paradigms, fuckpants!} 23:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

He's repeatedly vandalized the Gamergate page but never beyond the "3RR" rule. That's why I binned him every other fucking time.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

We don't have a three revert rule here. Tielec01 (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I know that. I'm just using it as a benchmark.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, just realised that was the reason for the quotes. Tielec01 (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

So regardless, we have someone here editing in bad faith because he knows the hate mob he's subscribed himself to is losing anything resembling a grasp on reality or influence it had when it first started and he's filling our pages with attacks on living people and participants. What can be done?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Ignore them. If they start doxxing, or committing homophobic, sexist or racist attacks then ban them for short periods of time, that increase in severity each time they do it. If the community agrees they are trolling then we can also ban them for that, but this community is very reluctant to ban trolls because we are acutely aware that designating someone a troll is not so different from dismissing arguments out-of-hand. Indeed, we have elected trolls into our moderator group. The fire of opposing arguments, even from devil's advocates or trolls, crafts strong arguments. Tielec01 (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

But binning them for droll arguments on talk pages and erasing whole sections of pages to make them more palatable to a hate group is wrong?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, don't bin someone for making arguments no matter how stupid or droll they may be. The reasons we don't do this are complicated; but for illustration consider the epistemological definition of knowledge. Not only must you be right but you also must be right for the right reasons. If you tell me that the moon is not made of green cheese but made of rock and you know this because green cheese can't exist in space then epistemologically we would say that you don't have knowledge because while you are right, you are right for the wrong reasons.

At RW we want to be right, not because of the certitude of our beliefs (trust me the other side are just as certain) but because we qualitatively approach these issues differently. We allow dissent, we encourage argument, we consider other points of view and so on. Otherwise we might have a great article, which comes to the correct conclusion, but for all the wrong reasons.

Designating someone as a troll is usually a snap decision, and it's usually some a way of saying "I don't like them" but stretching a thin veneer of respectability over that judgement call. If you think they are trolling then ignore them, if they are using PRATTs, ignore and undo with a snarky comment. If they won't stop trolling take it to the coop and we can decide what to do (although I personally think banning is usually counter-productive). Engage with editors instead, remember there may have been a time when you too were wrong. If someone remains unconvinced remain open-minded to the possibility that your arguments may not be as compelling as you think, don't assume they are trolling. If someone is too stupid or ignorant to get what you are talking about, make a snarky comment and ignore them - the truth will out. Tielec01 (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

But we've been at this for most of a month now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It's been a month, the evidence is in, the dude's been iteratively testing the boundaries in all that time. There is no good faith to be found here, and our wiki-wide shining new awareness of BLP does have to include the ludicrously-obviously-bad faith actors like Naqoyqatsi. In the bin he goes.

Designating someone as a troll is usually a snap decision, and it's usually some a way of saying "I don't like them" It is frankly ridiculous that you think that you can say this to Ryulong - David Gerard (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Slow down. There seems to be a number of editors who think there's nothing he's done that clearly fits the definition of "vandalism." Open a coop case and get a consensus from the community. Make it all legal-like. old reefer dude 14:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I second this. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Masturbation masturbation pies pies Brian Cox} 15:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Third. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 15:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, if you don't enjoy talking to someone, don't do this. It is confusing to me why you would actively seek out contact with someone you want banned.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It's because you won't fucking shut up and take the hint that you're wrong about 99% of what you've put on that talk page. And apparently if I'm not allowed to restrict your actions it means I have to debunk every single ancient Gamergate talking point you bring up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I won't shut up. I won't tell you to shut up either because I don't feel threatened by what you say or think.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Who said anything about threatening? You're just boring and wasting time. It's the same shit from fucking September with you and it's not like anything you're going to say about Gamergate is going to blow us out of the water and change all our minds. Professional victim this. Saying #NotYourShield is a bunch of token dupes that. Are you going to tell me to Google Helldump next week? Or is that too fresh of a Gamergate meme for you to be rerunning? All I ask is that you come up with some new fucking material or actual valid criticisms of the content of the article rather than negging that the one fact about how Zoe's nude photos became Gamergate general knowledge was technically wrong in its description. Do anything other than that one time you fucking whitewashed half of the page to post glowing reviews of Gamergate that were factually wrong or irrelevant. Do something that helps this fucking website rather than waste everyone's time you fucking reddit red pill reject.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

This conversation is about to go badly downhill, inevitably ending in comparisons to Hitler, and hurt feelings all around. Stop now. Step away from the keyboard. Go pet a jerboa, or milk a goat.

|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{I... I AM A MONSTER... COACH} 12:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Dude...

This isn't healthy for you. I've said it before, but you're putting too much stock in this online garbage. Download Unity or AutoDesk or Photoshop or something, have fun for Christ's sake.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't use the shit I say for your garbage rebuttal of whatever the fuck you're using that page for.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Just get a diversion or something. This is unbalanced. That's all I have to say on the subject.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

What's unbalanced is the stuff you're claiming are "lies".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You know, your attempt to gaslight Ryulong under a guise of false concern is morally contemptible and shows a lack of ethics. Ethics is honesty, and the honest fact is that you just hate what Ryulong is writing here and you will go to any lengths to stop it. I'd respect Gators more if they'd just be honest about their hate. --Castaigne (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Would you fear the intellect of a man who thinks the Gehr Group can't rake in the dough because they make surge protectors? He is deluded and condoning his behavior has done him no favors.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Says the person propagating weak Bilderberg-style conspiracy theories.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Figures

You do not appear to understand why such a list is needed. Yes, these people are mentioned throughout the text. However, you cannot gain any sense of their major influence just from the text itself; the amount of events prevent that. Having a dramatis personæ is immensely helpful for digestion and would take some flack from both you or the article. --Castaigne (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Make that a whole lot of never mind. --Castaigne (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The whole "figures" thing isn't good and lacking in a lot of spaces. We should do a "dramatis personae" of some sort but it shouldn't be full of all of the weak-ass woo peddling refs that would go in an article that no one wants to make either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Ugh

But hi there. I'm new, so cheese? LlamaPastor31 ^{is a weasel} 23:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Name changing

Is this really the kind of nonsense that's being done to you? Gee people are silly. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 07:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It's very sad yes. I wonder why they came here though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I hope I'm not going overboard with the blocks.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd lay off the content hiding (as its more completely silly than actually incriminating) but the blocks are fine. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 07:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not like I don't expect someone to completely reverse everything I've done cause they think I've gone into headless chicken mode.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Both legit to me. We either deal with this shit or let determinedly malicious shitheads turn RW into ED - David Gerard (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Should the blocks be extended?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's see how it goes - David Gerard (talk) 07:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Like all but 3 were blocked at wikipedia as proxies.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

A few things

Ryulong, sorry to say this, but you're not going about this the right way. What do you think the Gators will do if they look at the coop? They'll go "Ha, Ryulong is making a big fuss about someone replacing his username" and laugh their asses off. Let's not let the Gators win! Think strategically, act composed, be realistic. RationalWiki is a mobocracy, so you gotta try and get the majority on your side. In the case of a wiki, that 'majority' will consist of a de facto minority of users that are the most active, especially those that like to involve themselves in policy issues (kind of like a democracy, except politicians don't get elected but are instead tacitly approved). If your support consists of David Gerard (who isn't quite that active or vocal usually) and one or two bystanders, you're not gonna get very far. Which means you gotta live with the accepted consensus: no rangeblocking, no revdelling (except with doxxing), no permabans, (almost) no permaprotection, IPs being proxies is largely irrelevant etc.

So what if some ass comes on here to bother you? Here's my advice:

1. If it's something excessively minor or puerile like someone replacing your username with some funny word, treat it proportionally, don't let them rile you up. (And really, if it's something as lame and puerile like the Buddyroid shit, there's nothing more incriminating than leaving it out in the open for everyone to see. Anyone not embarrassed from doing stuff like that is delusional.)
2. Preferably, leave it for someone else to deal with. The prospect of you interacting with their vandalism is the main reason they post it here.
3. If you feel really really compelled to do rangeblocks, revdels etc. but are well aware that someone will come to revert it, then beat that person to the punch and undo it yourself. I can see how rangeblocks and revdels can make the vandals' job considerably harder, but don't leave them instated after the vandalism's died down or try to argue for keeping them instated when there's no prior consensus approving such. You give your opponents too much ammunition that way.

141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It wouldn't have evolved into this if everything I did to clean up after this mess was undone as it was. And everything I did was minimal. All those IPs and ranges were blocked for 3 days. All the protections were for a day or 12 hours. But it's just like anything I do when shit hits the fan for me is thought of as "overzealous". It's my fault for sticking with this screenname. It's my fault for acting in opposition. What the hell is supposed to be done?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Look, personally, I don't really care how much you revdel or rangeblock or what you pick as the expiry time, but I know that these things can push some RW users' buttons the wrong way. Try to anticipate the backlash as much as possible. RationalWiki can be a nice place if you know where the invisible lines are (and some of them aren't all that invisible to be honest). 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It's been like this since I got here. The backlash is inevitable regardless of what I do. They're still complaining about the Gamergate page despite it being barely longer than it was when I first joined, and that I've been resistant to making more Gamergate pages. But I'm the face of it here like I'm the face of RationalWiki to Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems some people here will always blame you for stuff like that. You don't need to keep trying to persuade them otherwise. But they don't need to be the majority. Show the people whose opinions aren't set in stone that you can adjust to the RW climate. Speaking of said climate, I'm afraid bans of a day or longer are generally seen as "long" and possibly "excessive" around here, unless there are some exceptional circumstances in play. Yeah, I know, RW is very different from other wikis. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It's just odd I'm being punished for cleaning up after someone who was here for the express reason to be an asshole to me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the thing is the way you cleaned up was very un-RW-y. Kind of like how a Muslim can take offense if you clean something with soap made from pig fat. How justified or well-intentioned you were in cleaning it doesn't really factor into it. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

So half of the comments were fine with it but I still have to deal with the few who it bothers so intensely.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Eh, David was the only one completely fine with it. Zero and Wombat had some objections to the revdelling. And then others added some stronger criticisms still. But yes, when the people tacitly accepted as policy policers are bothered intensely, you have to deal with that. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

All I was told up until JJJS was "revdel is a bit overboard".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Which is the understated version of the hyperbolic "Your revdelling was completely overboard!" There is variety in how strongly people hold opinions and how strongly people express them. That doesn't make said opinions substantially different. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Hyperbolic is a perfect way to describe the spectrum of apathy, general disagreement, and "this is a desysop worthy act".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You are heading for a block

Reconsider your actions. Sarah (HH) 06:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe respond to my points instead of shoving them down the page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Do me a favor please (waves truce flag)

I know you and I don't get along, but I'd like to create some new abuse filters to tease out some of the Gator trolling before it can even show up on the Wiki. If you could please send me an RW e-mail with traits in their editing (phrases, terms, external links, etc.) that would signal to you outright that the person using them were a Gator troll, that would be great. Keep it Top Secret, as anybody who knows the rules I'm making can get around them. But I think (as probably you do) that the Wiki could use a more pre-emptive response to GG trolling. I look forward to your correspondence and cooperation on this. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how feasible this would be, to be honest. There are several links that I am aware of, but they're also used to point out the hypocrisy in the article spaces.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Trust me, there are viable ways to make it work without false positives. Just send me what you got and let me work my techie magic. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You really just need to see what they say themselves.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

In other words, you're making me do all the work? Fair enough, I suppose. I'll see what I can do on my own and hit you up with questions. Cheers! John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 08:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It's just that they're so forthcoming with the bullshit that I don't really know anything specific to tell you to look out for. There are their various walled gardens that they like to link to every now and again, but I don't really see them that often anymore.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Think about it and see what you can come up with, AbuseFilters are powerful and evil magic - David Gerard (talk) 09:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Autoblock

Yo I'm still hit by that autoblock w/ID #75843.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Should be good--Miekal 04:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sysoped

I resysoped you. No victories for terrorists, not even self-harm. Just don't use the buttons. K thanks bye. Hipocrite (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

E-mails and such

I read them and replied. Sorry for the delay. I'm working on it all as we speak. Cheers and beers! John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 08:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Pinning it on you

The three times i mentioned you, it was as "one editor who's very single minded in his interests on the wiki", "the person people disputed the format of the Gamergate article with" and "don't over weigh how much ryu represents Rw's userbase overall interest on gamergate" (so a rehash of the first time). I've pinned nothing on you. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Then what do you call it when you mention me three times when complaining about a topic?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

... Complaining? I was complaining about gamergate on RW? Did you read the topic or just ctrl-F your name and start making assumptions? The things I said in that thread - "There isn't a real hype about GG and hasn't been for a while" and "Saying there is hype about GG on RW is giving far to much significance to one user who makes a lot of edits, some trolls and a editorial dispute about the method we are using to fight Gamergate". That's sure a lot of complaining about a topic on there or pinning the blame on you, Esp. when i kept saying "We need to cover Gamergate". The only negative thing I said about our coverage of it? "Once gamergate is dead, not all of the detail we have built up in the article will be important and we can work on cutting it down to what is most important to understand the quick rise and even faster fall.". The only reason I even mentioned your name is because people mistake your interest in Gamergate with the wiki as a wholes level of interest in it. So if you're going to accuse me of anything, make sure I'm actually doing so.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 05:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

My apologies then. But I doubt that this is going to be something that can be easily pared down, or will properly "end". It will be as over just as much as any proper conspiracy theory.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Learn how to ignore trolling

FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 03:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)