User talk:Ryulong/Archive7

This is an archive page, last updated 20 November 2015. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <8>

, (new)(back)

We just went through this the other day

you do not get to decide whom may and may not talk on a talk page, and attempts to do so got him punished. Stop. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I was copying and pasting your last message to my archives. I'm tired of you Paravant. Unblock me and reinstate my sysop privileges now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You do not decide whom may and may not post on your talkpage. We just had a fight over this with Cast and are not about to give you differing treatment when we were harsh on him for it. You can deal with not being able to edit for an hour while you think about what you've done wrong, and then you can get your bit back. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to see your stupid persecution garbage because of shit I wrote on the brony page that's not on there anymore. This is bullshit. I was removing the crap you were posting and putting them on my archive page when you did this shit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If that's what your response to my posts is, i'm only going to respond with "Troll Harder". You do not decide whom posts on your talk page and who can not. We just got in a fight with somebody else over this, you do not get special different treatment. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't want you to leave me any fucking messages on my talk page. That is not something difficult to grasp.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You do not decide whom posts on your talk page and whom cannot. We just got in a fight with somebody else over this, you do not get special different treatment. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I personally do not want to hear from you if you're going to keep dropping references to shit I said is problematic amongst Bronies. I did initially just remove what you said but because you were so persistant I added them to my archives like everyone wants. Now unblock me and reinstate sysop. This has nothing to do with the rules. It's because you have a grudge against me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact the comment that made you freak out and declare "no never talk to me!" had nothing to do with Bronys is the best part of this, honestly. Now, "You do not decide whom posts on your talk page and whom cannot. We just got in a fight with somebody else over this, you do not get special different treatment"--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The comment you left is still related to the dispute on the Brony page. I don't want to talk to you if that's what you're going to be doing. That is all. Now give me back my sysop rights.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It actually has nothing to do with the Brony dispute unless you think any reference to 4chan is related to Bronys. Nominations and "campaigning" for the November 2015 mod elections have begun as of November 2nd, and will run until November 16th, 7 pm PST . If you would like to nominate somebody else or yourself please visit the nomination subpage.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Spider-Man has nothing to do with incest as far as I am aware while you did constantly make these references on the Brony page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The use of spiderman in 4chan threads is vaguely tied to the idea that it should be used to derail Incest threads. But please, continue to whine about how i was discussing bronys. You still won't get let out and remopped til your 1 2 hour block is up, you broke rules, were a massive tool about it, and got punished. Deal with it. | Editing peoples comments is a no. Stop it --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No. I removed the content you added but I dumped it into my archives. Stop it with this petty bullshit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding it to your archive does not change the intention, which is against how RW works. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have to respond if I don't want to. And because we can't remove it entirely I just dumped it into the archives like everyone wants to be done.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you don't have to respond, not that you understand the meaning of that phrase. I'll repeat this again: We just punished Cast for doing EXACTLY what you are doing - deciding who can't post on your talk page and enforcing that decision, you don't get to do it if others can't. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Ryu: Trust me on this one issue if on nothing else: Paravant has a rather short temper with people who consider talk pages personal property. Including user talk pages... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No Seriously dude

You don't get to decide whom may post on your page, regardless of whether you like them or not. We just punished another user for doing that. You also don't get to edit peoples comments. Stop. Mod Hat. Deal with being punished, you clearly don't get it enough. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I archived it before you blocked me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

So did Cast, that doesn't change the intention of defining who can and cannot edit your talk page, which is something we do not do here. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying you can't. I'm saying I don't want you to post here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Enforcing your dislike of my posting here by way of removing my posts and dismissing them as "you said something, go away i don't wanna see it" is specifying whom can post on your talk page. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Tough titties.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The irony of your statements is hilarious. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Paaraavaant why are you a far right MRAndroid libertarian brony GamerGater who is only here to harass and dox Ryulong into silence |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{You ah TEAHRING ME APAHT Anonymous user!!!} 02:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm just a horrible human being. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Ryu, while the rules and protocols here may be a bit ambiguous and hard to pin down in many cases, deleting text on your talk page is not one of those fuzzy cases. It was made very obvious to me within days of my arrival at RW that "my" talk page was not mine in a real sense, and that it is strictly verboten to delete for any but a a handful of reasons -- reasons not applicable here.---Mona- (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

oh good lord

stop it.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 06:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No archives no further problems arising from archiving.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Shut up. You had three hours to figure out how you were doing things wrong and how you've alienated pretty much every single editor on this wiki, and yet you have not learned. Honestly the only reason you haven't been kicked out like Brx is because of David and the fact that you only survive because a few higher ups defend you should tell you something. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 06:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It means that on this parochial little wiki dedicated to skepticism, atheism, and mocking Conservapedia, I've clearly rubbed several people the wrong way and you happen to be one of them. Because as far as I can tell there is no real way to properly amend things with you in the short term, I had preferred to avoid unnecessary confrontations like these by just not communicating with you or going to any pages that would have resulted in what had happened this evening. Although it's clear from the comments left on User talk:142․124․55․236 that this goes deeper than any mistrust originally developed by saying "KINKSHAME HORSEFUCKERS" or vastly rewriting the MLP page to be less kind to the Brony fandom. It boils down to how I've been writing about Gamergate and the inevitable drama that comes about when I react towards really bad concern trolls, and particularly ones that enter that particular part of the project. Or perhaps your own personal ideas of what constitutes Gamergate, not that the page here really said anything different from what it does now. But, again, clearly I've struck a nerve and there's no way for that to be fixed so I don't know what to tell you otherwise.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

making amends with me is best achieved by just about anything other than avoiding me and insulting me/deliberately pissing me off, as brx learned--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 06:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I would simply prefer to let some time pass because the wounds are still fresh. I don't feel I can address anything specific at this time.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"vastly rewriting the MLP page to be less kind to the Brony fandom" -> that's a bit of an understatement, and it also wasn't the problem. Your edit warring and general dickish behaviour over it was. Carpetsmoker (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I am really struggling to comprehend why you make your life here so difficult Ryu. Your unwillingness to abide why what are a pretty relaxed set of RW guidelines and standards is apparent right from the early entries in your user talk page archives. I say unwillingness as it can't be inability as you are clearly not stupid. I don't get it. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Because habits from nearly a decade of doing shit a particular way on Wikipedia are hard to break from Wikipedia and I really fucking hate Bronies because of the awful shit that several of them do and the fact that no one else in their group does anything about it. But I'm the one in the wrong and not two people who have unilaterally desysopped me and blocked me for hours at a time without a coop case.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If you think everyone else is the problem and not you, then you quite probably you are the problem, and not everyone else. Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

" unilaterally desysopped me and blocked me for hours at a time without a coop case."It's impracticable to open a coop case every time someone who behaves as you do persists in, uh, behaving as you do. If other sysops don't reverse this "unilateral" decision(s), you might ponder on why.---Mona- (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No one else on this website is blocked, desysopped, and then prevented from even editing their talk page because they got into a petty little fucking argument that wasn't even in the article space. But talk page sanctity is more important than anything else when you have a magnifying glass on you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"I really fucking hate Bronies...."

What is this all about? Some people like watching a cartoon and acting like fans. What is there worth to hate in that? And if there is something to hate in that, why not just ignore them. I've managed to live my whole life without even encountering the concept until quite recently (never mind an actual Bronie) so it's not like they're inescapable. 07:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC) ^{— Unsigned, by: AgingHippie / talk / contribs}

I don't know what to say about this anymore. The local page praised them when large portions of the Internet despise them and it's not because they're not gender conforming but because they bring with them a disgusting entitlement just like in every other fucking fandom I've ever come across.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

But what did I do wrong here? Piss off two local Bronies. I haven't done ANYTHING with that page since Carpetsmoker desysopped me and banned me for an hour. And tonight I remove a single comment from here without archiving it immediately and I'm subject to a 3 hour ban. There's apparently no page on this website that I can edit without pissing someone off, turning it into a honeypot for some idiot Gamergater, or being mocked as you and everyone else is going after my sandbox page because I have no where else to fucking host it that has a format that I can work with. So please. Tell me what to do.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"Large portions of the (particular small part of it that you are involved with) Internet despise them" is not an convincing reason to hate someone. Large parts of that same internet hate a lot of things you are quite passionate about defending, from what I understand, so coming from you, that's more than a little incongruous. As for their "entitlement," well, if you go out of the way to make comments about a bunch of people you could easily avoid instead of actively think about/write about/engage with as a concept, that says about as much about your own sense of entitlement ("I have An Opinion! And it must Be Heard!" is pretty damn entitled thinking...) as it does anyone else. And I still have no clear idea as to what is hateable about them, as opposed to Trekkies, Star Wars geeks, Harry Potter fans, (Star Wars and Harry Potter were meant for consumption by children and are enjoyed by many adults....) or Deadheads or Parrotheads for that matter ....07:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Have fun going through my blog.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. I go into depth on the subject here, three posts down. I figure it's easier to link you than to have to repeat myself here. Kitsunelaine (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing there that should warrant any reaction other than: "That doesn't sound like my kind of thing. I wonder if there's anything good on Netflix?" Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't find anything wrong with the sexualisation of a show for 5 year olds and their parents? The fact that when they go online to look up the show and their characters, they find overwhelming amounts of porn? There should be an unspoken rule about the sexualisation of children's show characters (who are arguably children themselves): Don't do it. If it's debatable whether or not a character is of age, don't draw fucking porn of them, and don't call fursecution when called out on how creepy that is. There's also many things the community itself has been responsible for that just isn't okay, and should be covered on this here blog page instead of swept quietly under the rug. Kitsunelaine (talk) 07:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I find a lot wrong with the sexualization of everything by our society, but I have seen no evidence that the people who sexualize the show are any more of an issue than the people who sexualize Harry Potter or a million other things -- in a hyper-sexualized culture, everything gets sexualized in one way or another -- but that issue is distinct from the phenomenon of liking the show for any other reason. Also, kids are going to fing "overwhelming amounts of porn" on the internet no matter what they are looking for. The internet is made up largely of porn, and it is inescapble. That, again, is an issue separate from the question of liking the TV show for various non-sexualized reasons. Sorry, I see no real argument here. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is the volume and intensity for this specific show, and the fact that it's targeted age range is much lower than other things. I don't see copious amounts of porn of Strawberry Shortcake. Bronydom started from 4chan, and it hasnt' separated that far from it's roots. The userbase is quite often toxic, and a lot of the behavior it espouses is covered in depth in other articles on RationalWiki, without fear or shame. We would be remiss to say that it isn't present here. Kitsunelaine (talk) 08:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if it' more intense because people look for it there more intently -- the Streisand effect -- and how much of it gets created by the shaming of it, just by getting the idea out there. Anyway, until I see some objective, data-based analysis that concludes that there is some sort of meaningful nomber of people using the show as a way to facilitate illegal sexual activities, I can't take any claim like that seriously. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 08:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

here you go Kitsunelaine (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

do your own research?! C'mon!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Elaine trying to direct you to a Google search that on her end shows a preponderance of the porn she is alluding to is not "do your own research".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Buut I did not see anything NSFW using that link!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Clearly Google is up to no good.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

No idea. I entered "my little pony" into Google Images on my pc and didn't see any big diff (SafeSearch is off), so you'd probably have to dig deeper or with other search terms to come across clop.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried this?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

No clop on page 1.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I saw nothing NSFW at that link. I should note that using Google Search as evidence of anything is problematic, because Google can return different results for the same search when executed by different people. e.g. if I am in country A and you are in country B, Google may return rather different results to you from me for the very same search link. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It would seem to me, as an outsider, that the problem is that you are trying to paint a subculture with a broad brush. Just as their are certain aspects of every subculture that people can pick and choose to like/dislike, it doesn't and shouldn't be a reflection of that subculture as a whole. For example, I define myself as a "punk." Hardline straight-edge folks also describe themselves as "punk." That doesn't mean that the actions of hardlines are s reflection on punk culture as a whole. Heck, the sub-section of punk I claim to be a part of thinks hardline is nothing but school bullies who think punk means fighting. Bottom line: there is an inherent danger and, indeed, a fallacy to painting an entire sub-culture with the broad brush of a small sub-sect. Gooniepunk (talk) 08:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

In general cases that can be true, yes, but the problem that comes with MLP fandom is that the toxicity is upfront and roaring it's head everywhere it goes as the fandom's ambassador. This is one of those times where myself and a lot of other people think that "it's only a vocal minority" isn't the case-- other comparable issues would be the MRM and Gamergate. This problem requires more than an outsider's perspective. I think that while we should have lines that redeem the minority of bronies that are cool dudes who I'm friends with, but at the same time we shouldn't seek to sweep under the rug or downplay the madness associated with the fandom. Kitsunelaine (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more, and I say that because, in my encounters with "bronies," none of them are close to as you describe. Indeed, most of the ones whom I have encountered have been through activism in the LGBTQ+ movement, and have been all about "friendship" and "being nice". Gooniepunk (talk) 08:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you've had encounters that shape a more positive experience, but me and so many of my friends have had the opposite, and I feel like that should be reflected in the article. Kitsunelaine (talk) 08:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

(EC) I agree that we shouldn't outright ignore the troublemakers in the fandom. But, as I stated above, the problem is that in painting with a broad brush, you are also steamrolling over the ones who aren't even close to being the bad ones. You need to tread lightly. Gooniepunk (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that people are removing even the lightest of criticism, and when they let the criticism seek in, add sentences that try their best to nullify it completely. It's a battle of attrition. Kitsunelaine (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not at all interested in discussing the article here. Just trying to understand why people can't just ignore things that bother them to the point of evoking hatred. I have to wonder if most of the people who feel like you got there because they learned there was this thing out there they could hate, and would otherwise have never even encountered the idea of "Bronies" in the first place... Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If you're not interested in talking about the article, don't jump into a discussion about the article. Buh-bye. Kitsunelaine (talk) 08:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to add my voice to Gooniepunk here. Most of my experience with bronies has been rather uniformly positive. Ryu (and the friends in question perhaps?) seems pretty familiar with 4chan and other troll hives while I (desperately) avoid such sites; could that perhaps explain this blatant discrepancy between our views of the fandom? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 13:41, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

I find it significant that Kitsunelaine appeared to feel that simply googling My Little Pony would return plenty of Brony porn whereas, when I tried, I got nothing that I wouldn't want a five year old to see - well, I went down three pages worth, maybe if I went furter but.... Doesn't google tailor results to the known preferences of the googler? As such those who search out Brony porn will find it and continue to find it. Little girls will find more suitable stuff. Oh, and I would hope their parents have the safety filters on unlike me. As for accusations that paedophilia is rampant throughout Brony culture - the simple fact that Lauren Faust is happy to engage with them suggests otherwise. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure she's disturbed by "clop".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

As are most content creatorsc when they discover rule 34 applies to them. That isn't a reason to make hit pieces on every fandom under the sun.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 14:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

What does Lauren Faust think of these unusual fans? "I think it's awesome!" she enthuses. The fact that bronies are comfortable enough in their sexuality—whatever it may be—and brave enough to express their fascination with a show for girls is inspiring, Faust adds. "I hope that they inspire other people to open their minds as well." She'd like to think they're paving the way for other men to express their interest in "girly" things.- Lauren Faust[1]

From here Sorry, I should be able to embed that link in the cquote template but the wiki fu is weak in this one. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

FTFY. cquotes don't look all too good on indented talk pages, as they don't indent with each colon. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Blockquotes are even worse; they add extra indentation, separating it from the rest of the post and making it seem like the quoted person actually made a comment in the discussion. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 15:25, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

You're putting words in Faust's mouth to distort a quote to say "she's okay with clop" when she hasn't stated that. I'm pretty sure if you ask her the question directly, the answer is more likely to be "Fuck no". Kitsunelaine (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the quote was more meant to show Faust's general attitude towards the brony phenomenon (and how she apparently doesn't consider the 'bad elements' to be pervasive enough to paint the whole fandom in a negative way to her). 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:53, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Everything in the brackets is extrapolating way too much. Plus, you also have to consider, these people sign contracts. They're probably not allowed to say anything that would damage the show. Kitsunelaine (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I just want to chip in as an aside, the two youngest voice actors of the show made and still make quite a number of appearances at Brony conventions despite being teenagers. You'd think their parents would stop them from doing so if there were significant concerns. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Money. Plus the fact that a large majority of the fanbase engages in relentless and enthusiastic defense of underage porn doesn't actually mean someone would engage in said acts because of how heavily the rest of society condemns them. That doesn't make it not creepy as all hell, and is most certainly not an excuse to not have the overenthusiastic defense not reflected in the article. Kitsunelaine (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I've never been on 4chan in any significant manner. Every experience I've had with bronies has creeped me out, especially those that try to whitewash and gaslight the creepiness of said fanbase, like is being attempted here. It's relevant to mention that bronies started on 4chan because they carry a lot of the mentality around with them everywhere they go. Kitsunelaine (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Way to assume bad faith when someone expresses genuine unfamiliarity with this 'huge depraved subsection (or majority even)' of bronies. If you baselessly assert that every brony that expresses surprise at your claims is doing so out of self-serving ulterior motives, I'm not surprised that you draw the conclusions you draw. Confirmation bias something something. And I'm not even a brony. >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:56, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

But here's the thing. #NotAllBronies is the default response. It's a conversation-jamming tactic that 4channers are astoundingly proud of (as seen in: Gamergate, MRM). It's really telling that you assume my conclusions are baseless and not based entirely on personal experience here. Kitsunelaine (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You act like the practice of distancing oneself from a subgroup within the overall group one disapproves of (be it genuinely or only nominally) is an unusual thing limited to 4chan trolls. It really isn't. See No True Scotsman for example. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:21, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

There's distancing yourself and then there's denial. This borders on the latter, I feel. Whenever you (you in the colloquial sense) bring it up it's always "not that kind of brony", and not "Wow that's kind of fucked up", even if you're being light towards the condemnation. It's the only response they have when faced with a situation that would otherwise require condemnation. Kitsunelaine (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If it's really as bad as you claim is is, then hey, I'm totally with you in condemning that behaviour. But I've yet to see anything presented here in support of your claims beyond anecdotal evidence and hearsay. Not exactly compelling evidence. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:01, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

I'm not really in the mood right now to go through google and uncover every time a Brony's refused to go the route of condemning their brethren for really fucked up shit, because it's not a fun time. Maybe another day (Plus my time is going to be limited over the weekend.) I also really wonder what standard of evidence would convince you against that mentality, because the types of people I've gotten used to pulling that argument are gator-types who aren't convinced of anything no matter how much evidence you put in their face. Not a personal judgement on you, but a precaution. Kitsunelaine (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Eh, if you're gonna Google specifically for examples, you'd by definition already be cherrypicking, because that's how search engines work. An overall evaluation of trends on MLP forums or somesuch would be considerably more useful. But I'm at least curious at what examples you'd present; I'll try to keep an open mind. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:23, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

This is the type of discussion where either side could easily accuse the other of cherry picking. That's why I asked more about your personal standard of evidence here. A big reason why I'm apprehensive about digging for sources is that this is an argument that is hard to have without falling into pre-defined pitfalls that people exercise regularly as opposed to constructive debate. Everything I present to this effect can easily be brushed aside with the non-argument "Well I'm sure there are heaps of examples of other bronies condemning this", whether the person making that claim does the research or not. Essentially, I don't want to argue if this is going to become a back and forth of No, U. If we have a argument threshold that's more than just a vague notion of "prove me wrong", that won't happen. Kitsunelaine (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

> ryulong offended by sexualized brony fan fic

> ryulong obsessed with power rangers

> mfw the most sexually disturbing fan fic of all time comes from power rangers

Agony in Pink Sarah (HH) 00:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

> mfw i go to your talk page and see gamergate apologia

also i'm not Ryulong, but nice try. Kitsunelaine (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The Power Rangers fandom is shit too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Protecting your own talk page

Please refer to RationalWiki Community Standards, section "Talk Pages", which states Talk pages (including user talk as well as article talk pages) and other discussion pages, such as debates or the Saloon bar, are community property. They must not be deleted, nor protected, although they can be archived periodically. May I ask, how is your protecting your own talk page compatible with that guideline? Now, of course, it is only a guideline, so exceptions may sometimes be made. But it is unclear what the justification is for an exception in this case. Looking at the revision history, I don't see any evidence of recent vandalism or harassment by IPs or new editors. Given that, it would seem to make sense for the protection to be lifted - it can always be reinstated for a time if IP/new-account vandalism/harassment becomes an issue. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 19:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

in Theory it exists and has stayed up because ryu is the target of a persistent campaign by new accounts and ips. Whether this justifies it... eh... but that's the reason anyways. @ryu, You should defend it on the grounds that vandalism and trolling would resume if You want to actually convince people, not go "just trust me"--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 20:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a good case for lifting it for a time, and seeing what happens. If it is unprotected for a few hours or days, and it starts to be vandalised or serious trolling occurs, then the protection can be reinstated. If nothing much happens, it can be left unprotected. Even if bad stuff happens and it needs to be protected for more time, the protection should not be indefinite but for a limited period, and then test the waters of unprotection once more when that period is up. This would all be compatible with the viewpoint that protecting a talk page must be an occasionally necessary exception, to be invoked only when genuinely dictated by the circumstances, and then for as brief a period as possible. I remember when people were plastering dick pics on my user talk page, and I was told my talk page couldn't be protected since that would be against RW:CS; it seems Ryulong wants his protected when people are doing far less serious stuff on it. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 20:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there any harm in keeping it on when there's very little IP activity outside of 142?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm no fan of Ryulong but I think protection from IPs here is justified. Sarah (HH) 22:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This

Is the last time I'm restoring your mop. So if you value it, stay out of trouble. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:02, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

I haven't even been online in several hours.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You really don't get to make this sort of declaration - David Gerard (talk) 08:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure the BoN can decide not to restore sysop rights if they don't feel like it, and has the right to declare it. Tielec01 (talk) 08:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No, no, Tielec. Gerard is right: 142 must pledge to restore Ruylong's rights whenever they are taken away. Who does he think he is, making a declaration otherwise? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure who I am either. Identity has always been a rather murky concept to me. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:09, 2 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Hence your "username" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

What's up with the weird spacing in your username anyway? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:18, 2 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Just letting you know...

You've been nominated! Though admittedly it was by a rather obvious troll account. >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:12, 2 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Still, you are very much welcome to throw your hat into the ring; if you wish to do so, you will need to indicate acceptance of your nomination by... sometime on the sixteenth. Not sure when because Miekal's using a different time zone and the falling back just occurred and I'm lazy, and even if I were motivated, I don't know what time is local for you. Anyhow... as a personal note, while I may or may not agree, I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say about good and proper moderation, regardless of whether or not you run; some general discussion on that topic is over at the campaigning page. WalkerWalkerWalker 12:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

7 PM PST is 7PM PST regardless of where you live on earth, for reference it's also GMT -8 between now and march and GMT -7 during DST. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 13:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you... I'm just not at my best right now (I mean my word, my prose is even more awful than normal), but thank you. WalkerWalkerWalker 13:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Its also not my choice in wording, that's what it says on the election page :P --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 13:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

An apology

As you might have noticed, for some substantial while, my userpage contained a somewhat subtle/hidden but entirely unnecessary jab at you. I realize now (and probably did then) that it was mean-spirited and served at best only minimal purpose (spleen-venting, for which I realize there are far more appropriate, less hurtful venues). I apologize for this, and I intend to hold myself to a higher standard in the future. (side note: I do not require or even necessarily expect a response; I have no objection to this being archived at your whim) WalkerWalkerWalker 12:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

So what happened yesterday

I thought you had enough? Why the sudden change of heart? Usually when people LANCB they last longer than 12 hours. Tielec01 (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Because someone betrayed my trust.—Ryulong (talk) 06:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds ominous. Tielec01 (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Someone betrayed my trust yesterday and it upset me and I thought maybe I could stop participating here because that was somewhat related but I saw someone being a complete idiot and I couldn't stop myself from coming back and telling them off.—Ryulong (talk) 06:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hah, someone on the internet was wrong. What next? Tielec01 (talk) 06:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

RW is about someone being wrong on the net.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

But what happens when someone is wrong on RW?—Ryulong (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Ya know

Links work just as well. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:14, 5 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

But images are easier to convey information with.—Ryulong (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Copyrights

This has to be taken seriously, you know. There is a real legal issue here.---Mona- (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Educational and parody requirements are both met.—Ryulong (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No.---Mona- (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair use firstly requires that there is an educational use for the image that does not detract from its copyright status. The image in question accompanies descriptive text of the design of the character as well as the message that the caption within it insists. Fair use is met, Bubbe.—Ryulong (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

So now we're having this discussion on 2 talk pages? Fair use is murky, and the "fair use" of these images is borderline at best. That applies to the entire first row of Vivian James artwork. As said before, I don't think it is, but I'm willing to accept that it's "grey enough" to allow it...

The second row, by the way, is blatantly not fair use. As here's it's not art created by GG supporters, but by its detractors. So your "parody" claim crashes even harder. Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Their art is act of parody though. And the messages within the art are described in the accompanying text.—Ryulong (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a copyright lawyer, and I will be happily shown wrong, but as I understand it your idea that you can simply use a copyrighted work that is an act of parody as fair use is, simply put, wrong.

As I read it, how fair use works is that you take an original work, and transform it to some degree, (for example for the sake of parody). The transforming part is important, you need to do something different with the work than what the original author had intended (how much exactly is where the murky area is). We're sort-of doing that with the top row (not enough imho), but we're not doing that at all with the bottom row. In this list summaries of some court cases I see one that's almost the same as our situation here (emphasis mine):

Not a fair use. An artist created a cover for a New Yorker magazine that presented a humorous view of geography through the eyes of a New York City resident. A movie company later advertised their film Moscow on the Hudson using a similar piece of artwork with similar elements. The artist sued and a court ruled that the movie company’s poster was not a fair use. Important factors: Why is this case different than the previous case involving the Leslie Nielsen/Annie Leibovitz parody? In the Leibovitz case, the use was a true parody, characterized by a juxtaposition of imagery that actually commented on or criticized the original. The Moscow on the Hudson movie poster did not create a parody; it simply borrowed the New Yorker’s parody (the typical New York City resident’s geographical viewpoint that New York City is the center of the world). (Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 663 F. Supp. 706 (S.D. N.Y. 1987).)" Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way, did you try asking the creator's permission? Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

One of the images comes from a dead blog. Another I could theoretically ask if we could use it. The third is a photoshop of a Gamergate meme.—Ryulong (talk) 08:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I would recommend seeking that permission, yeah. Ass-covering is always good. WalkerWalkerWalker 08:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Also I had no intent of discussing it here. That's Mona's doing.—Ryulong (talk) 06:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Vivian James original.png is the definitive Vivian James artwork & the most relevant (& hence most justified under fair use) when discussing the creation of the character. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The caption is under discussion as well.—Ryulong (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

"I know fair use rules and he's just going overboard"

I'm sorry, but this is complete and utter bollocks. I've conceded on the images by the GamerGate supporters. Not that I necessarily agree with your interpretation, but I do agree it's not without merit either, and it's "grey enough" that I don't feel confident in stating my right in a definitive way; you could quite possible be right here.

The images from the GG detractors (including the file you reverted), however, are not fair use. You're talking out of your arse if you claim they are. In the discussion above I've linked a court case which very clearly states that borrowing a parody is not fair use. If you read the descriptions of fair use, you will come to the same conclusion, as the key part in what constitutes "fair use" is that the way in which it is used is "transformative" ie. that it's different than what is originally intended. Borrowing a parody is not transformative, since the intended use was ... parody.

I already explained this to you above in a post that I spent some time researching to make sure I was right about this, I could still be wrong, of course, and will happily be shown wrong, but you show a complete lack of respect by not even responding and reverting the image anyway. Apparently my time in trying to engage in reasonable discussion is wasted, since you just go of and assert "it's fair use" anyway.

If you think this is protected under fair use? Fine, argue why. If you want to claim that we can use these images in spite of not being fair use? Also fine, we can have an honest discussion in how strict we should be about copyright. But show some respect for other people. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Educational usage. Accompanies text that describes the actions depicted/mocked in the comic.—Ryulong (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Bottom line is that the RW copyright page gets the law and risks correct: Being conservative is smart, and Ryu simply cannot be permitted to keep restoring deleted files and edits into the GG page where multiple others feel the risk is too great. I've de-mopped him and thrown him into the bin. If others disagree, fine, I won't argue about it, but I think this has gone on long enough.---Mona- (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this eloquent rebuttal with a wealth of arguments to back it up. I spent more of my time and did some work for you, and the best I could come up with is this, which doesn't support your view. Want something better? Make your own argument. Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Vandal bin

Unless some fucking idiot kind soul let's you out first, I'll do it provided you promise to abide by every single copyright decision Carpetsmoker, Paravant or I make. If we tell you we don't think it is fair use or otherwise kosher, you leave it at that. End of. Well?---Mona- (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

This is extreme. I've just sent a private message off to the person who created the comic on Reddit to ask for their permission to use it on the site. Undo all this shit, Mona. You could have just stopped at the desysop but no. Removing autopatrol and vandalbinning. Now I can't even respond to you properly because you've made it so I can only edit once every 30 fucking minutes and after solving a captcha. No one else gets this fucking treatment on this website. AND THERE'S NEVER A FUCKING COOP CASE.—Ryulong (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Do it again, and I'll de-mop and VB you again.---Mona- (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll do it when pixelotl says we can use the drawing.—Ryulong (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

See, thats your problem though Ryu, you do things before knowing you can. "Wait until we get sued" "ask AFTER using it if we can use it", thats not how it works. Stop. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

This one person who made this stick figure drawing of an alligator wouldn't sue us over something as minor as this. But I've asked them to post on the file talk page to clear things up and I'll be watchlisting it until then. But you still went overboard Mona.—Ryulong (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Also there needs to be a more intuitive way to find the vandalbin autoblocks.—Ryulong (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I have a fucking JD, and I still defer to the people whose expertise here is applied to the RW copyright polices. You can't have everyone just deciding, for themselves, that the can use any image they want, that they are satisfied it's fair use. Moreover, while it is probably that the site would only receive a take-down notice, Paravant is right -- you don't wait for lawyers to be formally involved.---Mona- (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

"They wouldn't bother suing us" is not a valid excuse. We banned somebody for a year because they were putting the wiki in legal danger, the only reason you aren't either is because David defends you. Remember that, just David and anybody you convince to come here, nobody else. Think on why this is true for a moment, we clearly all can't be rabid GGers or Bronys or other people you've angered for striking at our beliefs.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Unless you're a copyright lawyer versed in American fair use law Mona, I'm not sure that your JD counts as something you can use to show you're right and I'm wrong. And Paravant, I'm sorry I call you "horsefucker".—Ryulong (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with that you complete idiot. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The fact you're getting involved to me seems like it does.—Ryulong (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong, my judgment on matters such as this is far, far better than yours because I have actually had to deal with copyright issues at the professional level, not to mention being formally educated in the area. And yet, I don't make my own decisions about copyright policy at this site. And neither should you.---Mona- (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

But I can't wait for that neo-Nazi StukaLied using this whole situation for some new thread on Reddit that leads to another brigade.—Ryulong (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I got involved because i'm tired of you, it has nothing to do with you calling me a horse fucker. Fuck off. |Even the people who watch you are bored of you Ryu, think of that to.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The Reddit user who named himself after Nazi propaganda doesn't seem bored.—Ryulong (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

And it's not like the completely pointless wheelwarring you instituted over the screencap I made of the block logs when I got fed up with how bullshit this website can be last week to where you wouldn't stop deleting it, modlocking it from being uploaded again (which doesn't really work when it's just a file being undeleted), and all that other bullshit that you personally pulled over File:RW Community.png that wasn't even over copyright.—Ryulong (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

We have 0 use for a picture of you whining and bitching about how you alienated this entire wiki. Again, think, why is it nobody here likes you, unless you think we're all NRXers, GGers and other people you've targeted in your righteous crusade against the evil internet. --00:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

What does it fucking matter if it's on my fucking user page? And I don't fucking know why no one likes me. You hate me because I called your fandom a bunch of entitled ableist pedo horsefuckers when trying to convey the general feeling the rest of the Internet has towards the fandom. AgingHippie hates my writing. Carpetsmoker and -Mona- are on my case presently because the copyright concerns of this stick figure drawing are really fucking important. Arisboch and Tielec01 are the local "enlightened" libertarians. Gooniepunk has no beef AFAIK. That pretty much covers everyone. Meanwhile Castaigne got scared off because of talk page bullshit that he didn't feel like dealing with this place anymore.—Ryulong (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Corection: I don't care for you, I've just taken an apathetic stance because life's too short to be pissed off all day at people on the internet, andI am tryng to rediscover the fun in RationalWiki. Gooniepunk (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The more you say it the less true it becomes. And Castaigne left because he was an idiot who got mad when he couldn't get his unilateral decision to stick, after throwing multiple tantrums just like it in the past, not because of talk page discussions.--00:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

"Carpetsmoker and -Mona- are on my case presently because the copyright concerns" -> No. Look at my deletion log. I deleted a whole bunch of images, I added licenses to more, an even replaced one image (one you uploaded originally ffs) with a free version. Don't you pull that "just because of me" crap on me. I'm trying to do a general cleanup of at least the mainspace pages which is a boring thankless job; some may think it's pedantic or unrequired, which is okay, other may think it's harmful, which is also okay, and can be discussed like reasonable grow-ups, but I'll have none of this "oh you're just out to get me" fucking bullshit. Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

"I've just sent a private message off to the person who created the comic on Reddit to ask for their permission" -> Which you should have done FIRST, as I suggested this morning, before reverting. That would make this entire discussion moot and everybody would win. Now you've just fucked up more of people's time here. Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The deletion didn't happen until this evening though.—Ryulong (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Did you revert it first or did you ask permission first? Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Also it seems this person hasn't been active on Reddit in 3 weeks.—Ryulong (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Well you likely won't be getting the copyright permission to use it then. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Your point? Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Just fucking nuke it all.—Ryulong (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

And then this part begins again.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Dude...

"No one else gets this fucking treatment on this website. AND THERE'S NEVER A FUCKING COOP CASE."

This is like the third or fourth time I've seen this mentioned in the last few weeks. Do you really want a coop case? Do you really think you'll come out on top?

My 1:30AM view on this:

How this works, everyone has a "shit level". This shit level describes how much shit people are willing to take from you. do good stuff, your shit level rises; do shitty stuff, your shit level drops. There are some other users here who occasionally pull some shit, their shit levels may drop a bit, and sometimes it leads to a shitstorm and their shit levels drop significantly. But here's the thing: they then go back to being (mostly) reasonable and nice folk and doing good stuff, so their shit level rises again.

Of course, a person's shit level varies from person to person, depending on their views, shit tolerance, etc.

Your shit level, for many people here, is fairly low. For some it's probably even rock-bottom. You've consistently pulled shit ever since you came here, being unreasonable, doing things like blocking entire IP ranges, instigating long-term blocks, and perhaps most importantly, the whole My Little Pony nonsense, all made your shit level drop quite a bit. It's interesting that now you're arguing with Mona, someone who was quite outspoken in defending you in the last coop case. I don't think the de-sysop was warranted here, but I can understand where she's coming from: a low shit level. This is why your treatment is different in general. It's really your own fault mate. Try to not pull so much shit and things will improve over time.

So, back to the case at hand, what you could, and indeed, should have done is not revert the images (several times), but actually reply to my arguments, have a discussion about it, and then do whatever that discussion's conclusion is. A more reasonable person would have spent 20 minutes researching fair use, trying to find arguments to support his case, and ends up convincing the other party. Now you've spent 20 minutes bickering over a stupid near-meaningless sysop. Do you really think this is a meaningful way to spend your time? Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikis never are, apparently.—Ryulong (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Also: blocked proxy ranges, no one ever said anything about no long term blocks on obvious bad faith trolls, and that MLP bullshit was only last month so that doesn't explain why no one liked me before then and the page still faces all of the propagandist problems it did before without acknowleding any actual criticism the fans get for their ingrained MRA-esque streak that other fans claim is unfair gender-based discrimination on liking a show for little girls.—Ryulong (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Defiant to the end that you make no mistakes. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

You threw out every fucking source I posted to back up my claim.—Ryulong (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Because they weren't good sources. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Nothing short of a paper in Nature would have been a good source to say "Bronies face criticism from feminists and LGBT activists because of their toxic behavior and appropriation of LGBT terms".—Ryulong (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me go write an opinion piece on my tumblr about how it isnt appropriation, and by your source standards it wont be. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It'd be better than that fucking DeviantArt post Mona found.—Ryulong (talk) 00:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec)I alternate between trying to help you become a better editor and cause (& deal with) less shit so you can be a happy part of the community, and finding you an insufferable asshole. So far, I have never had the feeling you took anything I said seriously, so perhaps it's time to give and just accept that you're an insufferable asshole. Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Fine.—Ryulong (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm just so burned out of these things and I obviously burn too many bridges in the process so maybe you're right. I'm an asshole. I alienate people without even trying. I'm a horrible human being and I shouldn't bother contributing to this website or any other anymore.—Ryulong (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Jeez man, less of the passive-aggressive pleas. So many people here have been so reasonable for so long in trying to explain shit to you, that is not an appropriate response. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 00:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ryu, put up or shut up, then. We need less users going "oh I won't do x anymore" and then doing x still.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what to do anymore. I obviously can't fix my behavior despite all of the apparent attempts everyone's made to try to direct me into the "right" direction. It didn't help after 9 years on Wikipedia and it's not going to help after a year on RationalWiki.—Ryulong (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually try and fix that behavior instead of ignoring them? Stop thinking you've done no wrong and that you're being persecuted unfairly? Not be obsessed over editing fucking wikis? --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok.—Ryulong (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I, for one, would not support Ryu in a coop case, as I did before. And it has ZERO to do with his viewpoint on anything per se. (We probably are in substantial -- but not total -- agreement.) It has to do with the things that Paravant, Carpetsmoker and some others have said about his attitude and behavior. Moreover, if it is the case that he's recruited friends who mostly only show up when he's being cooped, we need to do something about why such a thing is allowed.---Mona- (talk) 00:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?—Ryulong (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

You think I'm a libertarian, do you Ryulong? I'm heartened to see that your incompetence in writing is also reflected in your thinking, you fucking cretin. Congratulations in managing to alienate yourself even from your natural allies; you're a natural at it. Tielec01 (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I hope this helps

How about this:

• Make a commitment not to block or vandalbin people, and not to remove anyone's talk page edits. It's obviously been a source of friction, and there is a high-level of sysop presence here, so you need to learn to rely on them to carry out that kind of mod duty.
• Make a commitment to discuss problem edits on the talk page instead of reverting them; trust other editors to back your argument if you're in the right.
• Focus less on owning pages -- if other editors complain about the way the page is written, make some commitment like "I won't edit the page again until two other people have edited it."
• Make a commitment not to make any ad hominem attacks, even if it's really, really obvious. It doesn't accomplish anything, and it's setting people against you.

I know there's the inclination to assume that you can't trust the community, and you have to make sure everything is "right" all by yourself, but if you make rules like this for yourself and hold yourself to them, you'll hopefully see that the other editors can handle things too, and you won't feel so overwhelmed.KrytenKoro (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)