Knowledge:Requests for comment/Ryulong

1417:

be made, I block. New accounts that blank high profile articles with "fuck" repeated 100 times, new accounts that go directly to some esoteric project page and enter a conversation that they should really know nothing about, or simply new accounts that I find vandalizing articles that I have on my watchlist, I block. Out of my probably several hundred blocks (there's a user subpage somewhere that lists the whole number, and it's probably viewable in some sort of query.php thing), I have made a handful of mistakes. This is essentially what happened with my RFA: out of my over 40000 edits at the time, I made a questionable edit every thousand or so, and that was picked up on as incivility, a violation of some policy I'm not entirely familiar with, or something of the like. Any actual mistake I make, I apologize and move on, and try not to repeat that mistake. In my opinion, this RfC is calling to throw the baby out with the bathwater. No one is perfect, not even with administrative tools. I make no more mistakes than anyone else, and I really think that this RfC is premature, given the fact that I had no ability to reply to The Evil Spartan about my actions

2848:" four warnings have been given to users. If people are here to cause trouble, it's often blatantly obvious, and Ryulong hit's them early. In my opinion, Ryulongs does the job that would have to be done a few edits down the line anyway, and saves us all the hassle of clearing up the mess that disruptive users are here to cause. Obviously, there's a few he's got wrong, but Ryulong does a hell of a lot of blocks - so it's obvious mistakes are going to be made every now and again. All in all, Ryulong does a good job as an administrator, and with a little more thought before a some of his blocks, he will be even better. 3422:. This guy was blocked for 24 hours by another admin for fair-use violations and inflammatory user-talk posts. He began removing warnings etc from his talk page; Ryulong warned him not to remove these warnings or he'd be blocked. The user removed Ryulong's warning, and was indef-blocked because "he just did what I told him not to do." Which ignores the fact that users are generally free to remove messages from their own user talk pages, as I do and Ryulong does, etc. The handling of the situation struck me as a bit power-trippy. 1738:, so I complained to another admin and "left you be" with no further posts on your talk page! I said nothing else to you at all, save a reply on my talk page. That's hardly 'harping' at you for two weeks. I comment here because this is evidently a pattern of behaviour that needs to be addressed. I did nothing wrong to deserve a block; there was no vandalism, no faulty username, no inappropriate behaviour, no rule breaking. You jumped the gun and wrongly assumed that I must be the banned user (even though it was pointed out 3326:, which is greatly misleading; not every IP in that range is an open proxy -- in fact, GoDaddy's terms of service prohibit open proxies, GoDaddy detects customers running open proxies, and GoDaddy suspends their accounts. I have a dedicated server hosted by GoDaddy and have always used that server as a closed proxy (using SSH tunneling) when I'm on an insecure network. I attempted to have my own server's IP unblocked twice, before I registered this account. The first time, it was declined by 3763:. Shortly after, I saw the Alkivar/RFC, where I made quite a scene about his multi-modal attacks, mostly because how angry I was over what Videmus Omnia did to Mr. Renner, whos a distinguished person (also I hadn't much experience with disputes, and didn't know protocol). I just noticed this RFC. I can't believe it. I know we are supposed to stick to the issue of Ryulong (and I support the input of pschemp), but this RFC has been called by someone who has been quite disruptive. I've been on 109:, a condition of which was that he would show restraint, Ryulong has actually only significantly worsened. It is the rule, rather than the exception, for Ryulong to block users without the slightest bit of warning; often, they are good faith users, and worse, he almost always blocks their email (which should be a last resort). He blocks large swaths of IPs for months at a time, or even indefinitely, under the idea that they're open proxies, something which is extremely dubious (patroling 987:, especially in the IRC channel. Although my account was relatively new, I had hundreds of constructive edits and absolutely no disuption (aside from one minor honest mistake). At that point, I had intended to file an RfC (though at that time he had fully protected his RfC page from creation) - so I created a user subpage with the IRC log of the conversation to use as evidence. Apparently stalking my contribs, he twice deleted the evidence page as quickly as I could create it. 2703:< close to pushing it far enough for an admin recall, and you agreed to start warning people. Not only that, but you're continuing to block huge swaths of IPs as open proxies indefinitely, and blocking user's email on the first block (this should be a last resort). What the heck is your issue? I don't have a lot of time, but I'm now going to open up an RFC - the only reason no one did it before is because it takes too much time. 3145:

only the IP has changed and I'm not interested in creating a silly id name because it isn't about me, it's about the contribution). Ryulong has admitted here that he didn't have all the facts before the block, so why the profanity afterward instead of an apology? Admins should have a kind heart toward those they have wronged. I can tell you that I was far more "annoyed" by being blocked for

974:, and note that logging of conversations in the unblock channel is expressly permitted. More on that later.) In the conversation, he repeatedly demanded that I reveal personal information to him (which I felt that a simple administrator has no right to do), when I refused, and continued to ask for a neutral review, he brusquely said "I'm out of here" and disconnected. 1398:

he was indefblocked, and he told me that he used "Brian Peppers" in edit summaries because "Brian Peppers Day only comes once a year." He then returned under several sockpuppet accounts, I then listed him as banned, but then he was given a second chance by Eagle 101 (I see he added himself to the list, including his "indef blocked for 3RR self defense" thing).

1178:

of sock puppets of one or a handful of disgruntled editors or evidence of a real problem with this administrator. Therefore, some kind of thorough re-examination would probably be helpful to either "clear" Ryulong or identify the admin's problems and allow for an acceptable compromise/solution. So, that is my read and I wish everyone good luck. Best, --

3449:

blocking people solely because "I told you not to do that and you did it anyway", when their actions are otherwise appropriate. We should not react to criticism, whether constructive or trollish, by deleting and salting our own RfC's. It sounds like Ryulong has taken the feedback he's gotten seriously, so let's give him a chance to work on it.

3263:

disrespect. I've done nothing wrong, and creating a username is encouraged, not mandatory. As such, I should be afforded the same level of respect, unless I had shown that I didn't deserve it by actions that actually violated a rule somewhere. Even then, a warning would be the appropriate response, aside from blatant vandalism.

3126:

persistence is understandable, he should have either answered the criticisms on his talk page or ignored them. Admins sometimes need to have a thick skin. My desired outcome is that Ryulong be more willing to allow criticisms to remain visible in appropriate places (his talk page or RfC), even if he considers them meritless.

3296:

the possibility that I was running an unauthorized bot; Ryulong assumed I was, and blocked me indefinitely. I wasn't, in fact, and if Ryulong had read my talk page, he would have seen that other administrators were polite enough to inquire as to how I was editing so efficiently; my answers satisfied them

3657:

This is unrelated to anything. I opened up a discussion on the talk page, and the page is not in "stagnation" nor am I in control of the content. At most, I don't want the front page screen updated with each update of the main page, and the gets are unnecessary to keep track of. Again, the discussion

2861:- by implying that the problem is that Ryulong hasn't issued four warnings, then you're ignoring the bulk of times when no warnings were issued. Or do you really think that all those blocks, without warnings, of good faith users, were acceptable (for which he only begrudgingly apologizes, if at all)? 1698:

The user on the IP address has been harping at me for the past two weeks because of information I had no access to when performing a block on what I thought was an IP belonging to a sockpuppeteer that I was only familiar enough with concerning the discussion that the individual on the IP had entered.

1397:

Gen. von Klinkerhoffen was edit warring and censoring sexuality articles. In two of his edits, he referenced Brian Peppers (we should all know that), and this was on the day that we got a massive influx of vandalism relating to said individual. He then contacted me via IRC, and I explained to him why

3819:

Of the few examples of blocks I am familiar with, I can say I fully endorse all of them. As for the problem case, I do not think a great deal of harm is done if the wrong editor is blocked for a few days. Even the indefinete blocks seem to have solved themselve out. (Thanks to Jimbo, in some cases.)

3771:

For Videmus Omnia to have, in six weeks, RFC'd two admins and gained two ANIs for vindictive deletions is remarkable. It seems that people are impressed with his image garnering capabilities, but I don't feel that this give Videmus Omnia a right to follow anyone who's mildly offended him, and to use

3243:

A common thread here is a suggestion that you give more consideration to the possibility that your first take on a situation isn't the whole story. You can give a warning and see what the effect is, you can leave a criticism posted and see if others agree with it, etc. "None of us is as smart as all

3194:

I was not sure that individuals on IPs who may possibly be a sockpuppet (even though it was later disproved), and particularly one that editted in a harassing way, should have been allowed to make a comment on this RFC. I later gave a response to his points brought up. Really, this has nothing to do

2670:

He's fast and does a lot of good work for the 'pedia. But being over-zealous also loses us valuable contributors. Vandalism is not a bad thing in itself, people should be encouraged to vandalise and notice the "edit this page" link. Once they discover the joys of constructive editing, their energies

1662:

the blocking. Moreover, it was not malicious or abusive "sockpuppetry". I've explained on user page of each created sock who I am and why I'm doing what I'm doing (check history of user pages, Ryulong/other people have replaced original content with template about socks). Each sock was created after

1371:

HistoryBuffEr left the project and solely kept an attack page up on his user page which was pointed out to me by another administrator. I deleted his userpage, and blocked him. He was unblocked, and he later recreated his userpage as his only edit, claiming vandalism. He did not want to edit, but he

503:

that admin commented that he didn't think that the editor was a SSP because the location was on a different continent than the supposed puppeteer. Even after the ANI discussion was archived and the editor complained, Ryulong refused to lift the block. The block was overturned by a different admin,

3225:

It's not "nothing to do with this". I called it "closely related" because the RfC is about blocks, and my comment is about the handling of criticisms of those same blocks. Admins should go out of their way to receive and consider criticisms of their use of admin powers. If the criticism comes from

3144:

I'm sorry if Ryulong was "annoyed", but all I asked for, very respectfully, was a simple apology. If he had said, "I'm sorry", he would have never heard from me regarding the matter again. I am not a sockpuppet; I am one of many that volunteer their contributions here in good faith (I am not new,

1972:

Unfortunately RFCs are never raised to illicit and discuss the positive contributions that editors make. Having waded through Ryulong's recent investigation into sockpuppetry across multiple projects I can safely say that the positive administrative contributions far outweigh the occasional trigger

1416:

In nearly all of these situations, I perceived bad faith accounts or accounts that acted in good faith, but were against the whole guidelines and policies. I do recent changes patrolling. When I see questionable edits from entirely new users, and edits that should not be made, nor allow to continue

1177:

I've read through a large number of the items on the Administrator's Noticeboard on Incidents to gain a better personal sense of how Knowledge works and what to avoid. Anyway, it just seems that Ryulong gets complained about frequently on that board to the point of something being up: either a lot

1138:

I have discussed a few of Ryulong's actions with him, but I don't feel sufficiently involved to sign under the above section. Anyway, Ryulong is extremely severe and hasty with the block button and often seems to not even review a user's contributions before blocking, doing so based on gut feelings

3410:

Ryulong is a workhorse and takes on a lot of thankless administrative tasks, for which I'm grateful. He's made some difficult but completely appropriate blocks, which I also appreciate. I think that the drama-generating aspect of the situation is that he is heavy-handed on the block button, on one

3295:

Unfortunately, I do feel that Ryulong is indeed rather hair trigger with blocks. In the interests of full disclosure, I must note that I have been affected by two of Ryulong's blocks; the first was when I was editing using a semi-automated tool and a curious editor opened an AN/I thread examining

1807:

Sorry, but warning is not a pre-requisite for blocking, especially in the case of clear vandals and username violations. Some of the claims here are a bit over the top. Ryulong has been over-zealous at times, and should voluntarily put thought into blocks before he acts upon them, but that doesn't

1319:

Videmus Omnia explains exactly what happened. I thought that he was a bit too entrenched in fair use policy, I blocked, and after he contacted me and he said that he did have a previous account, I wanted to check it to see if he was abusing multiple accounts, and then I would unblock him. He would

1005:

The only reason I was able to get out from under my unjust indefinite block was that I already had some experience with Knowledge, I was persistent, and knew my rights. A truly new user would undoubtedly have just left permanently. Despite my requests, Ryulong never would explain why he thought my

1742:

I was blocked that I live in a different part of the world), and blocked me for a week without warning. That block was overturned rightly, and again, it would have been simpler, and resolved the matter with me completely, if you had merely said "I'm sorry; I made a mistake", rather than compound

1233:

I have had bad experiences with this Admin. He doesn't really bother to listen to what you have to say, neither does he care when you attempt to justify your edits on a certain page that he has repeatedly reverted for his own personal reasons. I was banned temporarily under the previous username,

60:

user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was:, the page will be deleted. The

2852:

A short rebuttal (I don't know which section to put this in). I'm not implying that; if you think I'm implying that, I'm not sure if you're reading my comments. By all means, some users could and even should be blocked without a warning. However, I looked through Ryulong's block log, and in the

2309:

Ryulong does some awesome work & it's a dirty and unpopular job, but he can be waaay too trigger-happy for my comfort. I cannot comment as to percentages but IMO, he needs to be more thoughtful with the block button. There's nothing more off-putting for a misguided newbie than an over-swift

1947:

Ryulong has been somewhat trigger-happy (to appearances) in the past, but he has recently started slowing down. I think pschemp says it wwell with, "Ryulong has been over-zealous at times, and should voluntarily put thought into blocks before he acts upon them". Be more careful with potentially

3448:

Bottom line: Ryulong does a lot of good work. RfC's tend to focus on the negative, which is unfortunate. We can all do better; in his case, I think cutting down on volume a little and posting blocks of logged-in users with some constructive contribs for review might be helpful. We should avoid

3125:

I'm not addressing the propriety of the initial block. My point is that admins shouldn't suppress criticism of their admin actions. We non-admins are entitled to expect, at a minimum, transparency and accountability in the exercise of admin powers. While Ryulong's annoyance at the anon IP's

2736:

I expect nothing of the sort, Mackensen. My problem is Ryulong blocking ridiculously large swaths of proxies: blocking entire /16 ranges, etc. I have some techinical knowledge, and I heavily doubt these are all open proxies (especially given the unblock requests that have been handled in them.

2275:

I think Ryulong needs to actively slow down his blocking and use more thought or he will end up desysopped eventually. He does a tremendous amount of good, but I'd rather see him do 50% to 75% as much good each day for a longer period of time. Even with fewer good blocks, there will be fewer

2483:

I agree. I don't believe that Ryulong should be desysopped at this point, just that he should make at least some attempt to engage people before blocking and express a willingness to explain his actions, and to apologize if he makes a mistake. He does a lot of valuable work, and to completely

2271:

reveals that multiple administrators considered recalling him for his blocking activity earlier this month. Ryulong's standard for recall is 5 significant contributors; he reached four admins who thought recall was in Knowledge's best interest very quickly, then they backed off once he began

3168:

I disagree. "Drop it and leave me be" would've been fine if posted as a response under your comment. Then everyone else coming to the page would know there was a dispute, and they could judge for themselves who was right. It's the attempted suppression of that information that bothers me.

3262:

Furthermore, I've shown above that I didn't edit in a harassing manner, or violate any rules at all. Crying harassment after deleting benign requests for apology, and after cursing at me, is disingenuous. The fact that I'm on an IP does not mean that I am a second class citizen worthy of

2713:

The indefinite blocking of open proxies is policy. The impression I get here is that the Evil Spartan expects Ryulong to start warning open proxies before he blocks them. That would certainly be a new departure. I'm also left wondering about the reasoning of someone who acknowledges 1) an

3107:

flagging 121.208.181.37 as a probable sockpuppet, which resulted in Ryulong's block (#20 in the list above of "Examples of failing to warn users before block"). As noted above, after the user was unblocked, s/he complained on Ryulong's talk page, but Ryulong twice removed these comments

1296:

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response"

3581:

Admins are supposed to interact with the community as if they were normal users, and not talk and behave as if they were superior. I think it should be noted that Ryulong does not do this sometimes. Check out his archives and discussions for more on that. I'll add some examples later

1401:

AmendmentNumberOne's block log "User has only existed here to push a single point of view concerning the encryption key; no attempts have been made to edit a single article in the two days that this account was unblocked. This user is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" says

2334:

I also agree with this summary. I'd rather see a smaller amount of correct/good contributions than having things get out of hand. I think Ryulong has the good of Knowledge at hear, but I also think that more careful consideration of his actions would lead to better actions overall.

768:- initially blocked and unblocked by another admin, then blocked again by Ryulong just because "no attempts have been made to edit a single article in the two days that this account was unblocked" (part of the stated reason for indefinite block by Ryulong); unblocked by Newyorkbrad 1457:

My IP range blocks on normal ISPs are done to prevent abuse from someone who knows how to go from IP to IP and continues to be a pain in the ass. There is one individual right now that I have to deal with who uses Bell Canada that my blocks on singular IPs do not prevent him from

2252:

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside

1799:

3820:

If a good faith editor is blocked for a few days, he will most likely consider it a well earned wikibreak. Those that come here (or to other forums) to complain, are most likely edit warriors pushing their POV agendas. I do not think they should be editing Knowledge at all.

950:

When I came back online the next day, I didn't even know I'd been blocked at first - I answered a couple of posts on my talk page (including Ryulong's) and realized that both my account and my IP had been blocked only when I tried to edit something other than my talk page.

1010:, why he thought I was abusive despite a record of good-faith editing, why his behavior was incivil, or why he thought he had a right to invade my privacy. What I've seen lately has done nothing to give me the impression that his behavior, or his willingness to violate 3357:. This statement was a ridiculous generalization and unfounded in policy, but it seemed futile to continue discussion after I requested clarification on the talk page and no one answered. A couple days ago, I requested an unblock again so that I could run stable 2693:

From a dispute resolution perspective, jumping into an RfC before giving the user a chance to respond is not especially good form, but that's been addressed for now so I'll let it pass. My concern the other part of Evil Spartan's remark, which I'll quote in full:

1139:

or general impressions alone. He continues doing this kind of thing despite having many people tell him again and again to cool it. It's disappointing to see some people here on the RfC try to defend his behavior. By the way, count me as supporting his recall.

961:

My only option at that point was get on the unblock channel on IRC to seek out a hearing. None of the admins there would listen to me without first talking to Ryulong; I was finally able to reach him on the IRC channel - I requested that he post the block to

104:

Ryulong has been an extremely valuable member of this project since February of 2006 - I don't think I can understate how much this user has helped add to Knowledge through vandal fighting and use of his administrator tools. However, after a very contentious

504:

and when editor complained to Ryulong about unfairness in respectful manner, Ryulong responded by deleting the editor's two requests for apology, the second with the edit comment "My removal of your comments should be a hint as to drop the damn issue"

2102:

12:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC) I totally agree. Ryulong can be overzealous. But I think we need to give him some leeway. And yes I agree. I'm not sure where this "required warnings" thing came from but it's not true. It's case by case. Always has been.

1405:

Range blocks I perform are something else entirely. They are very likely due to vandalism that I find operating out of the range, or are ranges that belong to hosting companies and have had open proxies operating out of them (GoDaddy, ThePlanet,

547:

Other examples of failing to warn clear vandals before block. Note, I have put these in a separate section, because some of these blocks seem justified, whereas most above did not. Thus, the section is here mostly to show that Ryulong basically

1663:

previous account has been blocked, so there wasn't possibility to edit using two different accounts at the same time. (Check block log and creation log of all socks if you don't believe me.) By the way - I see some IP in this category -- why?

780:- vandalism. Because no warning was given, block was overturned (he had only one vandal contribution, a likely test, and a good contribution before block). User returned to contribute positively. This is exactly why we have the warning system. 1315:) (which is "the final straw" for Evil Spartan). So, while I'm here, I may as well defend all of the blocks that Evil Spartan has listed above (several of which I have no idea were overturned, but I'm not about to go out and reblock them). 3767:, all of them seemingly retributive for small slights, attempting to contextualize in light of his instigating behavior, and now this. Videmus Omnia is 6 weeks on Knowledge, but apparently has morphed logins, so he should know better. 933:, at a time when I was not online, Ryulong left a message on my talk page at 05:24 telling me I had incorrectly tagged a free image as needing a rationale - an honest mistake on my part that I would gladly have fixed given the chance. 1247:

This is a very harmful conduct indeed. I have seen Ryulong do a few other blocks which I thought to be a bit too fast and controversial, but I didn't make any note of it because he often blocks vandals, not registered users. Still,

3622:

before hearing me out. You could have at least moved it to the bottom of your page for further discussion. You admitted on your Discussion page that by archiving a discussion you believe it to be settled, but didn't even really

2555:

What Friday said. Plus, I'm somewhat dismayed by the number of established editors who jumped into wikilawyering about whether the complainants crossed all t's and dotted all i's, instead of considering the underlying issues.

1699:

The IP was later unblocked, and then proceeded to leave messages on my talk page demanding an apology, and I would have rather just moved on. I told him to leave me be, but it appears that he has not heeded that request.—

476: 3815:

are free to roam Knowledge, harrasing good faith editors and disrupting whole sections of the encyclopedia. One of these edit warriors can do more damage to Knowledge than a hundred established editors can do good.

3926:. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page. 2717:

Sure, Ryulong is quicker on the block button than some, but it's because this is so that most other sysops can kick back and relax. I'm left with the unavoidable impression of sour grapes. As a final note,

3153:, and then without even the courtesy of apology when the block was rightly reversed by another admin. Again, how difficult is it to say "I'm sorry; I made a mistake" instead of "Drop it and leave me be". 3116:). The editors who, shortly thereafter, addressed possible recall on Ryulong's talk page didn't mention this incident. Because Ryulong removed the comments, some of them may have been unaware of it. 1468:

I am doing my best to work on my trigger finger. I have performed very little blocks on actual users since the commentary on my user talk page, and the blocks I have performed are all within policy.

415:) - blocked indefinitely for removing GFDL from an image, without a warning? Absolutely ridiculous. While Ryulong undid this block, it just shows that Ryulong doesn't take blocks seriously enough. 2395:

editor does valuable work, otherwise they would not be an editor. Hopefully he'll take the criticism offered here constructively and the situation will never need go any further than this RFC.

1320:

not tell me, so I used what information I got from my IRC client, checked at Knowledge, found the original account, unblocked him, and expected never to deal with him, again (oh how wrong I was).

665:- user blocked, without warning, by Ryulong, who didn't even bother to look at the time stamps before going through the block (later overturned by Ryulong himself, after significant opposition). 153:

The evidence, unfortunately, is staggering. Ryulong has such a massive amount of edits, that it's nearly impossible to go through them all and list: these are only the ones I could find in the

3833:

Uh, Mr. Krohn, in your last sentence, did you mean to say that 'you think that they should not edit Knowledge at all'? I've changed it for greater clarity; feel free to revert the change. --

1375:

Jason Gastrich was banned due to an arbitration case. Somehow, the way the blocks were set up, his original year long block ended, despite being reset. He was later reblocked by Fred Bauder.

1349:

Deco Da Man had several bad hand sockpuppets that were discovered by Dmcdevit in a check on some random account that vandalized my user talk page. Then he did not write anything in articles.

1973:

happiness. And deep down, despite AGF, most of us can spot a mile off the accounts that will never, ever make a single positive contribution. Ryulong blocks them quickly and moves on. --

999: 2513:

Endorse with the caveat that I don't think this RFC is necessary, as these concerns were raised to Ryulong by myself, WJBscribe, A Man in Black, The Rambling Man, et al. very recently.

1732:

with the edit comment "enough". I left a final comment on your talk page expressing that I was going to another admin because all I wanted was an apology and you kept removing the text

1627: 1368:

Infodmz and ForPrivacyConcerns were used by other editors to discuss the Daniel Brandt banning/unbanning in privacy. I apologized to anyone I may have disenfranchised in this situation.

144:{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.} 2677: 1520:

Borlath's only edits are to spam some City of Heroes fansite. City of Heroes is one of my areas of interest, and there were also a handful of IP addresses performing the same edits.

1777:

Ryulong often asks me to consult on his blocks; that Bell Canada block is regrettable but unavoidable. He does good work and clearly doesn't have a problem explaining his actions.

2732:) ought to be grateful; not all former sockpuppeteers are allowed to come in from the cold. That Ryulong did so, without revealing your prior identity, showed tact and judgement. 947:

He failed to even leave a message a message on my talk page explaining the block, though he came back at 06:16 to blank the archive code from my talk page without an edit summary.

396: 2310:

banhammer. I think he needs to chill just a bit & maybe give more folks due process as it's surprising sometimes how some editors can get turned around at the last minute -

1511:

mentioned issues with his page on ANI, I saw it was a speedy candidate. Then "George Felton" recreated the page with disparaging text, claiming he was the individual's brother.

3383:

To clarify, I do absolutely think that Ryulong is a good administrator and that he does great work. But I just think he needs to be a little less aggressive in doing it. —

3437:, but was transcluded from a private list of salted pages which Ryulong maintains in his userspace. While I don't dispute the fact that he was trolled, deleting and salting 3411:

far end of the admin bell curve. I've noticed a tendency to assert authority and give a Power Answer, and perhaps a little bit of over-sensitivity to criticism or trolling.

786:- blocked indefinitely for alleged "trolling", unblocked by Ryulong himself after ~two days; feel free to read user's opinion about the case on his/her page and talk page 2702:. While his username may be a problem (as was his editing history), you didn't warn him or anything. And this is scant days after people had just said that you are : --> 431:) - I'm giving Ryulong the benefit of the doubt in assuming this user really was inserting false information; but did he have good reason to block indef without warning? 980:(which I had abandoned under right to vanish, because it was associated with my real full name) and satisfied himself that I was not disruptive. He then unblocked me. 2130:

Yes; warnings are not always necessary; in many of the cases listed in the complaint, Ryulong acted properly; but that's not to say there are no valid issues here.

179:) - I may be wrong about this user, there may be a history, but blocking a user without the slightest warning, and not for vandalism, is not good. I normally would 1735:. You removed that last post, cursed at me ("My removal of your comments should be a hint as to drop the damn issue") and told me to leave you be on my talk page, 1312: 3441:

RfC page, using a private salting list, for 4 months is highly irregular. Basically, a non-admin would have to figure out the unorthodox salting method and then

1323:

ZordZapper was indefinitely blocked because there is (amazingly) a handful of sockpuppeteers who vandalize articles relating to Power Rangers. Edits like his (

2264:. A large part of the opposition in the RfA was due to concern that the block button would be used to quickly. And now we have an RfC with evidence of it. 444: 292: 3364:

While both blocks may have been justified (the first more than the second), Ryulong's aggressive attitude concerning his blocks has and does concern me. —

3923: 1204:

Although I have never interacted with him, from what is presented above, I can see this is abuse of Admin powers and assumption of bad faith. Troll? Maybe.

49: 3640:, describe specific sections of their respective site, Ryulong won't stop reverting any edits concerning any board other than /b/(The "Random" Board), on 3445:

Ryulong for his permission to create an RfC on him. To Ryulong's credit, when I mentioned this to him he immediately un-salted the page, and here we are.

3099:

I'm commenting to address an issue that's closely related to the subject of the RfC: the removal of talk-page criticisms. My involvement is that I made

2672: 2261: 1382:

and had no other edits other than to support the man. Jimbo e-mailed me and confirmed that he was to unblock Meisterchef because he was not a sockpuppet.

106: 3309:

hours to get unblocked, and I was notified by the unblocking admin that I would have to limit my edit rate to four edits/minute in the future or make a

2257:{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.} 1804:{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.} 1335:) were not done in good faith, and I thought he was one of the various reincarnations, and I blocked him. He has not made an edit since being unblocked. 1465:

use the "block e-mail" unless I know it's a sockpuppet of someone, or I later find an influx of e-mail from a single user that constitutes harassment.

2844:

I think Ryulong is quite strict to when it comes to using the block button, the major problem here is due to the fact that he doesn't wait till the "

2391:

Ryulong clearly does valuable work. But we should not shy away from constructive criticism simply because someone does good work; it's assumed that

1026:

No offense, but as you are directly involved in the dispute, yours isn't an outside view. It more properly goes in the Statement of dispute section.

463:) - becuase no warning was given, block was overturned, and person returned only to contribute to WP. This is exactly why we have the warning system. 3736:(harassing three editors by marking for deletion all/most of their images - after they said or did something he didn't like). That block led to an 208: 367:) - same vein as Xterra. Clearly a new user who was confused about copyright issues. Blocking without even a warning was excessive and unnecessary. 3226:

someone who's been accused of something or other in the past, you can consider how that affects the weight to be given to that particular comment.

2613:

Umm - it looks like someone was soliciting money here in the exact same manner as email scammers do. There is also the matter of a deleted page -

1385:

Autocracy's indefinite block I believe was a mistake, because I immediately unblocked and reset for 48 hours. I probably should have warned him.

470: 3636:

article. That page has reached a state of virtual stagnation because of Ryulong's reverts. While other articles on online communities, such as

2470:

I also think that this viewpoint sounds reasonable. In any case, best wishes to everyone and I hope a pleasant solution arises. Sincerely, --

176: 631: 599: 492: 466: 364: 1526:

IP address warning is often fruitless. Page blanking is something I block for if I see multiple instances of it in a short period of time.

2729: 583: 276: 192: 3316:

The second block by which I was affected was an IP range block on an entire class B network owned by GoDaddy, Inc. The block reason is

1573:

You spin me round baby right round like a record's deleted contributions show that it is a vandalism block as well as a username block

1306: 647: 2529:

Endorse. Ryulong is simply being asked to stop hitting the block button so quickly; the world will not end if we wait a few seconds.

2151:

As per WJBscribe, and I also don't feel that warnings are always necessary. That said, I also agree with MastCell (here, and below).

2975: 2804: 2472: 2083: 1445: 1388:

Xterra1 I thought was a sockpuppet of someone who had been bothering me, and then he harassed me for an apology, which I later gave.

1180: 1002:) but it quickly degenerated into a discussion of IRC channel behavior (which was controversial at that time) and nothing happened. 615: 567: 412: 308: 1672:

Since you added Anonyymi, I guess I'll have to say that he was blocked because of the lolicon Wikipe-tan picture that he uploaded.—

3252: 3177: 3134: 1217: 537: 380: 286: 3844: 3803:

Administrators in general seem to be too reluctant to issue blocks. Self-evident vandals sometime get blocked, but what I call

3562: 990:- even though logging of that channel is expressly permitted. This led to a converstation on my talk page which can be seen at 390: 260: 224: 2714:

inappropriate username and 2) a bad editing history while denouncing the blocking administrator for inappropriate activities.

1557:(not just images as The Evil Spartan believes) and stated that he would edit Knowledge under a Creative Commons, Attribution, 991: 52:, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the 3896: 3866: 3700: 3541: 3388: 3369: 2980: 2809: 2500: 2088: 1570:

Bacta was trolling in #wikipedia, and was vandalizing on site. It was requested I block him (deleted contributions show this)

1264: 17: 3592:

I told you exactly what the issue was. You were not adding a new section to the bottom of my talk page, and then you put in

1523:

An administrator who can see YourRaajV's deleted user talk (he was the only contributor) will see why I blocked for spamming

1102:

03:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC). A review of his actions reveal a net detriment to Knowledge. I think that a recall is in order.

3354:) reverted it and noted, "This IP belongs to GoDaddy. GoDaddy is not an ISP. No one should be editting from a GoDaddy IP" 3351: 1933: 517: 428: 386: 344: 244: 80: 3884:

No. Never "block first and ask questions later". Block logs are preserved forever, and no block should be made in haste.

926:

I'm adding this view because I've twice been on the receiving end of undiscussed blocks and incivil behavior by Ryulong.

3810: 3313:. I did so, for semi-automated tools, and have tried as hard as I could to limit my edit rate, though it is difficult. 2351: 2268: 1409: 1223: 910: 905: 900: 895: 890: 885: 880: 875: 869: 863: 858: 853: 848: 842: 328: 3776:

This really has nothing to do with anything being discussed. It is a comment on Videmus Omnia's workings. Not on mine.—

1717:

I did not 'harp' at you for the past two weeks. When I was unblocked, finally, I asked you at that time for an apology

3337: 1664: 1623: 1454:

There is no reason I should have to warn a blatant vandal account, such as someone who blanks articles with "fuck you"

1279: 759: 460: 438: 540:) - wasn't warned at all, and while this editor was clearly not constructive, he was definitely not a blatant vandal. 3392: 3373: 3195:

with this, and should be moved to the talk page. There is no summary being made here. Just something that happened.—

2504: 1808:

mean every action he takes is incorrect. Asking him to consider his actions carefully in the future should suffice.

954:

I spent the day trying to get unblocked or to get someone to listen to me. For reasons I've never fully understood,

3434: 2699: 1422: 1302: 1192: 745:. I personally encountered this user, and found absolutely nothing disruptive about him - just a confused new user. 3658:

on the talk page is for you to add to, and then consensus controls whether or not /c/ and other boards are added.—

202: 3384: 3365: 3289: 2930: 2561: 2496: 1151: 434: 282: 971: 170: 3618:

Alright, I admit that it was my mistake of not adding comments to the bottom of your page, but you archived my

3066: 2970: 2799: 2646: 2601: 2577: 2078: 2053: 1999: 1529:

Nathaniel B. Heraniaos' edits were to his biography, it's AFD, and then citing ED trolls that should be blocked

593: 486: 358: 625: 994:. At that point I gave up on the idea of an RfC because I could not present evidence. I did file a report at 706: 577: 198: 3079: 2941: 2875: 2838: 2723: 2488: 2425: 2276:

incorrect blocks, and less discussion about marginal blocks (especially if his explanations also improve).

2066: 1162: 1077: 1043: 765: 641: 295:) - why was this user blocked anyway? Did he not merit a warning? If he's a sock, then that should be noted. 270: 186: 3433:, by Ryulong himself, back in February. The page itself was not protected, and it was not transcluded from 2585: 1880:

A few questionable calls out of zillions is no reason to cripple one of our most valuable vandal-fighters,

561: 302: 166: 3506: 3033: 2189: 1352:

TheN0ble2 was making articles containing the HD DVD encryption key when it was wrong at the time to do so.

531: 3270: 3264: 3156: 1744: 1379: 674: 621: 589: 482: 354: 254: 218: 3320: 2862: 2738: 2719: 2704: 2530: 2485: 2451: 2374: 1759:

Absolutely, this RfC is far too premature to be of any use, and Ryulong's actions are easily justified.

1148:

While Ryulong is a good admin, he's too pushy with the block button and this story is not a good one. --

1074: 1066: 1040: 983:

At this time I felt that his behavior had been extremely arbitrary, incivil, invasive of my privacy and

970:

for review, his response to this request was "Irrelevant". (I've posted the log of this conversation to

920: 771: 711: 662: 609: 573: 406: 266: 182: 637: 422: 238: 2114:

Aye. I made such a request not that long ago and Ryulong's action already appear more cautious to me.

1550:

Someone who creates the username "Lololololololololololololololol" shouldn't really be taken seriously

748: 605: 557: 298: 3249: 3174: 3131: 1545: 1235: 1211: 527: 374: 3759:. Videmus Omnia also RFCcomment and RFC'ed Alkivar. I "met" Videmus Omnia while he was attacking a 2417:

I also agree. Step back and count to ten before hitting the 'block' button, and all will be well. -

754: 695: 690: 685: 250: 214: 3839: 3557: 3522: 2945: 2768: 2750: 2638: 2593: 2569: 2121: 1996: 1858: 1781: 1166: 1099: 717: 86: 3732:. Ryulong blocked Videmus Omnia blocked, two days later (also without warning) by Ryulong, for a 3688:

have a dispute with. Ask another admin to do so instead. And you blocked him without any warning.

2407: 1867: 701: 418: 234: 3891: 3861: 3714: 3695: 3536: 3494: 3071: 2746:

We've encountered and blocked such ranges before; it's unusual to be sure but hardly unheard of.

2520: 2439: 2418: 2158: 2058: 1987: 1834: 1508: 1259: 318: 3905: 3875: 3849: 3827: 3789: 3706: 3671: 3652: 3627: 3613: 3586: 3567: 3547: 3525: 3517: 3509: 3498: 3483: 3455: 3396: 3377: 3273: 3256: 3208: 3181: 3159: 3138: 3085: 3049: 3023: 3015: 3006: 2996: 2983: 2964: 2951: 2922: 2898: 2865: 2830: 2822: 2812: 2793: 2771: 2753: 2741: 2682: 2665: 2653: 2632: 2608: 2564: 2550: 2542: 2533: 2524: 2508: 2490: 2478: 2465: 2454: 2442: 2430: 2412: 2402: 2386: 2377: 2369: 2361: 2341: 2329: 2304: 2301: 2292: 2280: 2237: 2226: 2205: 2179: 2171: 2162: 2146: 2136: 2125: 2109: 2091: 2072: 2044: 2026: 2002: 1990: 1981: 1967: 1954: 1942: 1908: 1899: 1875: 1861: 1850: 1838: 1822: 1784: 1771: 1747: 1712: 1685: 1667: 1649: 1617: 1590: 1486: 1438: 1282: 1273: 1242: 1228: 1199: 1186: 1172: 1143: 1116: 1079: 1069: 1045: 1034: 777: 450: 3119:

It's even more troubling that Ryulong initially removed mention of the incident from this RfC (

2857:

he issued - including several for good faith users. This bit about implying four warnings is a

247:) - no reason this user should not have been warned. He had two contributions over many months. 3783: 3665: 3645: 3607: 3514: 3503: 3415: 3345: 3202: 2994: 2956:

I myself would block with two warnings, at most three. Four is just delaying the inevitable. —

2410: 2176: 2038: 1979: 1925: 1871: 1819: 1706: 1679: 1584: 1480: 1432: 1031: 511: 338: 74: 751:(given Ryulong's subsequent reblock, it's difficult to tell if this is a good faith account). 3824: 3797: 3480: 2916: 2629: 2399: 2383: 2356: 2326: 2234: 2104: 2097: 2020: 1646: 1614: 723: 679: 402: 322: 3331: 3245: 3170: 3127: 3093: 2557: 1960: 1905: 1658:

socks before Ryulong blocked me indefinitely, so you cannot justify his block with events

1205: 1015: 1011: 955: 823: 813: 668: 454: 370: 977:

Apparently he then used my IP address from the IRC conversation to dig out my old account

3834: 3552: 3430: 3358: 3310: 3104: 3012: 2785: 2765: 2747: 2547: 2447: 2366: 2220: 2168: 2116: 1881: 1855: 1778: 1249: 1140: 1019: 1007: 984: 818: 729: 720:- blocked despite year being up on arbcom ruling. Soon reblocked for sockpuppeterring. 3886: 3856: 3690: 3531: 3489: 3451: 3404: 3054: 2827: 2515: 2461: 2436: 2336: 2153: 2132: 1949: 1827: 1567:

Pearl necklace jewelry was putting links onto the userpage to some commercial website

1356: 1343: 1254: 995: 967: 808: 783: 698:(overturned by Ryulong after being asked on talk page to not block users so quickly). 30: 2698:

You have once again blocked a good faith user without the slightest bit of warning:

762:- blocked indefinitely for (virtually) one 3RR violation; unblocked by another admin 3777: 3659: 3649: 3648:, but I don't see how that works out with this admin's tight grip of this article. 3624: 3601: 3583: 3575: 3341: 3196: 3020: 2989: 2539: 2289: 2277: 2245: 2031: 1974: 1917: 1815: 1792: 1764: 1700: 1673: 1578: 1474: 1426: 1301:

From what I'm seeing on my talk page, this is stemming from a block I performed on

1239: 1196: 1109: 1027: 963: 734: 507: 334: 70: 383:) - same again. Blocked without warning. User didn't even know why he was blocked. 331:) - another possibly good faith user blocked without the slightest bit of warning. 1394:

AfroPedia is a spam account, intended to write an article about his/her own site.

3465: 3001: 2958: 2913: 2858: 2817: 2614: 2396: 2346: 2311: 2231: 2141: 2017: 1844: 1631: 1599: 110: 3806: 3327: 3154: 2662: 2584:

02:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC) I'm not quite sure where to put this, but blocking

2484:

de-sysop him would be too extreme at this time. Communication is always best.

1532:

I'm pretty sure I said Civilwarguy was blocked for writing up fake biographies

1000:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive261#Incivility by Ryulong

930: 495:) - placed 1 week block, without warning on editor who made good faith edits, 3922:

signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to

113:

often turns up mystified IPs who can't understand why they've been blocked).

2779: 2215: 1362: 741:

by Ryulong, without warning. Both times overturned, last time with the note

399:) - A bad username? Probably. Hardblocking the IP without warning? Bad idea. 122:

Ryulong absolutely should warn vandals and POV pushers before blocking them.

3772:

every rule possible - including his image tagging role - to exact revenge.

1544:

Rick lay95 had the same issue, and I explain it to him on his talk page at

1726:

commenting that I was asking for an apology and that shouldn't be removed,

1448:, I am mentioned no more on that noticeboard than any other administrator. 1338:

Republicofwiki performed a number of good faith edits, but then suddently

3637: 1538:

Xterra1 is sufficiently explained, and I cite my mistake on the talk page

1361:

Mmckinnie was an accidental block when trying to deal with vandalism at

125:

Ryulong must stop blocking large swaths of IPs for long periods of time.

3361:

tasks on the dedicated server – that one IP has since been unblocked.

896:

User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_11#Your block of new accounts posting at CSN

802:{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct} 3632:

Also, Ryulong needs to needs to ease up on his strict control of the

2935: 1156: 1948:

controversial blocks, and ask for other admin opinions on those. ···

1421:, and some of the administrators who felt that I should be recalled 447:) - indef block without warning for spamming is quite inappropriate. 227:) - no warning. Username inappropriate, but it was a hardblock, and 3765:

five other discussion boards - all disputes raised by Videmus Omnia

3641: 3633: 3600:

15 minutes after you kept replacing that message on my talk page.—

2592:

just really looks awful. Sorry for not knowing where to put this.

521: 134:

Ryulong stops altogether with all sorts of trigger happy behavior.

95:

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

1391:

Civilwarguy was writing a hoax article about a supposed ancestor.

499:

editor responded to other admin that he was not a sockpuppet and

3931:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

1278:

I fully agree with Magnanimousjoe (check history of this page).

195:) - block overturned, because user promised to stop vandalizing. 44:

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

1514:

TheInformantofInfo created db-bios under various article titles

3854:

You shouldn't edit others' comments, so it has been reverted.

3760: 3425:

Example 2: It came to my attention a while back that the page

1372:

persisted to add an attack about "Ziopedia" onto his userpage.

524:, on Moderator's discussion when he was banned for harassment. 2671:

can be easily channelised into productivity for Knowledge. —

891:

User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_11#Blocking the range 88.154.0.0/16

1904:

Ryulong is doing an excellent job. Keep up the good work.

886:

User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_11#Concerns_about_a_username_block

864:

User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_13#Blocking_of_User:Republicofwiki

671:- user blocked on a gut feeling of sockpuppetry. Overturned. 3340:). When I added another request with further information, 854:

User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_14#Rangeblock_of_64.231.64.0.2F18

131:

Ryulong stops blocking users' email. This is a last resort.

3835: 3728:(immediately), but Videmus Omnia seemed to not be able to 3553: 2853:

multitude of blocks I saw in the past 3 weeks, there were

1238:

for trying to justify be edits and view, for harrassment.

1191:

The "block first, ask questions later" attitude smacks of

1104:

Striking comment made by sockpuppet. See user's contribs.

1378:

Meisterchef was seriously believed to be a sockpuppet of

3113:), and removed the anon's complaint about the removals ( 1628:

Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Gen._von_Klinkerhoffen

128:

Ryulong stops blocking good faith users without warning.

3756: 3752: 3741: 3737: 3619: 3593: 3419: 3355: 3297: 3120: 3114: 3111: 3109: 3100: 2708: 2589: 1736: 1733: 1730: 1727: 1724: 1721: 1718: 1541:

Omega Big Slim was uploading screenshots under the GFDL

1501: 1418: 1339: 1333: 1330: 1327: 1324: 988: 981: 978: 959: 948: 945: 934: 1250:

good faith should be assumed on new users at all times

906:

User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_10#Blocking of User:Superc63

520:) - No warning was given, was justifying his edits on 1598:

The last one is also a very obvious meatspin troll -

911:

User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_10#82.110.0.0/16 rangeblock

832:

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

940:

blocked me with the 3-word summary in the block log

714:- overturned twice; is now blocked again by Ryulong. 29:

The following discussion is an archived record of a

3845: 3563: 1059:{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute} 3059:when the vandals have already proven the contrary 3753:a series of retribution attacks by Videmus Omnia 1561:license, which is not compatible with Knowledge. 1493:Further responses to the other blocks brought up 1419:concerning the block on Activist4TRUTHinMEDICINE 901:User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_11#I unblocked Infodmz 859:User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_14#Range-blocked_my_IP 467:You spin me round baby right round like a record 3823:I say: block first and ask questions later. -- 1535:Radfax replaced pages with his band's biography 39:No further edits should be made to this page. 1720:and you redacted that request without comment. 992:User talk:Videmus Omnia/Archive/Jun 2007#Block 936:Only 3 minutes after leaving this message, he 849:User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_14#Indefinite_blocks 161:Examples of failing to warn users before block 3937:No further edits should be made to this page. 1507:After the subject of the now deleted article 1412:. It has nothing to do with any other issues. 682:- blocked twice by Ryulong, twice overturned. 8: 3840: 3721:This seems to be a pattern for Videmus Omnia 3558: 944:(and he also blocked my IP at the same time) 1626:has an entire closet of sock accounts. See 1086:and am including my statement and evidence 1054:Users certifying the basis for this dispute 263:) - blocked for light spamming. No warning. 50:Knowledge:Requests for comment/User conduct 2459:Agree, and expanded in my comments below. 1743:your error with disrespectful behaviour. 1365:. I unblocked and apologized to this user. 793:Other examples of user being trigger happy 479:) - any reason to hardblock this username? 279:) - two talk page blankings; no warnings. 3751:, mostly because I've been dealing with 1355:LOrdSteiN was adding an attack site to 876:User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_13#User_Block 3757:first noted by Man in Black on the ANI 3427:Knowledge:Requests for comment/Ryulong 2471: 1423:also feel that this RfC is unnecessary 1340:decided to voice his opinion at an RfA 1179: 2678: 1555:revoked the GFDL for all of his edits 881:User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_12#IP_block 7: 2588:indefinitely for "spam" for posting 1500:Scissormecirces5's only edit was to 1131:Other users who endorse this summary 870:User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_13#WP:DENY 3684:You shouldn't block an editor whom 2299:reduce quantity, increase accuracy. 2269:User talk:Ryulong/Archive 14#Recall 843:User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_14#Recall 1564:Gotonow was making up "Unixranger" 1502:essentially spam his youtube video 798:Applicable policies and guidelines 351:by Ryulong, both times overturned. 24: 3911:Users who endorse this summary: 3460:Users who endorse this summary: 2871:Users who endorse this summary: 2761:Users who endorse this summary: 2285:Users who endorse this summary: 1811:Users who endorse this summary: 1755:Users who endorse this summary: 1729:and you removed it a second time 1546:User_talk:Rick_lay95#Short_block 3044: 3041: 3037: 3034: 3029: 2200: 2197: 2193: 2190: 2185: 1410:I don't know why this is listed 387:Lololololololololololololololol 3761:newbie notable author/director 2700:User:Activist4TRUTHinMEDICINE 2689:Outside ramblings by Mackensen 2640: 2595: 2571: 18:Knowledge:Requests for comment 1: 3080: 3072: 3067: 2903: 2647: 2602: 2578: 2221: 2216: 2067: 2059: 2054: 2007: 958:declined the unblock request. 657:Examples of blocks overturned 315:hoaxer; not a single warning. 149:Evidence of disputed behavior 48:In order to remain listed at 3269:Apology accepted (see talk) 2912: 2474:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 2297:Only as far as I interpret, 2016: 1765: 1446:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 1182:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 1110: 3924:this page's discussion page 3568:02:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC) 2683:07:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC) 2654:09:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC) 2633:07:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC) 2609:06:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC) 1761: 1624:User:Gen. von Klinkerhoffen 1283:21:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC) 1106: 1006:account was a violation of 942:"abusing multiple accounts" 760:User:Gen. von Klinkerhoffen 63:17:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC) 3954: 3906:14:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 3876:14:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 3850:09:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 3828:01:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC) 3790:22:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 3707:15:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 3672:23:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 3653:22:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 3628:21:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 3614:00:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 3587:23:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 3548:03:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 3526:06:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 3518:06:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 3510:00:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 3499:07:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 3484:17:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 3456:16:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 3435:Knowledge:Protected titles 3397:17:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 3378:16:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 3274:14:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 3267:09:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 3257:05:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 3209:22:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 3182:21:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 3160:16:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 3139:11:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 3086:02:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 3050:14:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 3024:22:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 3016:19:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 3007:23:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 2997:16:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 2984:11:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 2965:03:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 2952:01:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 2866:19:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 2831:05:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 2823:23:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 2813:11:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 2666:03:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC) 2565:03:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 2551:05:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 2543:22:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 2538:Don't bite the newcomers. 2534:16:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 2525:07:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 2509:04:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 2491:00:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 2479:19:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 2466:18:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 2455:07:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 2238:03:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 2227:18:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC) 2206:14:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 2180:06:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 2172:19:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 2163:07:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 2147:23:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 2137:18:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 2126:15:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 2110:12:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 2092:11:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 2073:01:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 2045:00:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 1959:He does an excellent job. 1748:16:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 1713:07:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 1686:18:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 1668:17:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 1274:19:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 1243:23:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 1229:17:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 972:User:Videmus Omnia/IRC Log 836:(provide diffs and links) 61:current date and time is: 3746:I contend that this is a 2923:22:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 2899:22:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 2794:22:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 2772:11:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 2754:15:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 2742:15:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 2707:19:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 2443:20:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 2431:19:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 2413:17:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 2403:15:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 2387:11:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 2378:06:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 2370:06:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 2362:05:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 2342:04:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 2330:03:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 2305:03:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 2293:02:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 2281:02:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 2027:20:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 2003:18:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 2000:I did "That's hot" first! 1991:17:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 1982:09:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 1968:06:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 1955:04:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 1943:01:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 1909:23:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 1900:23:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 1876:22:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 1862:22:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 1851:22:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 1839:21:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 1823:21:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 1785:10:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 1772:03:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 1650:22:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 1618:21:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 1591:21:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 1487:04:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 1451:To the "desired outcome" 1439:03:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 1200:14:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 1195:, and is very troubling. 1187:03:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 1173:03:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 1144:03:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 1117:03:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 1080:23:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 1070:20:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 1046:00:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 1035:00:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 3934:Please do not modify it. 3149:without him warning me, 2448:Don't bite the newcomers 1995:I wholeheartedly agree. 1303:Activist4TRUTHinMEDICINE 1082:- I am certifying this, 1022:, have improved at all. 919:Statement of dispute by 100:Statement of the dispute 36:Please do not modify it. 3644:. We are encouraged to 2267:Archived discussion at 929:The first occasion, on 766:User:AmendmentNumberOne 726:- undone by Jimmy Wales 707:User:ForPrivacyConcerns 231:, which is unnecessary. 3414:Example: the block of 2711: 1665:Gen. von Klinkerhoffen 1654:Irrelevant. There was 1504:under false pretenses. 1280:Gen. von Klinkerhoffen 435:Pearl necklace jewelry 283:Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 3769:This is thin-skinned. 2696: 2586:User:Isissilvermoon27 3596:. I blocked you for 3385:Madman bum and angel 3366:Madman bum and angel 3290:Madman bum and angel 2971:Jeffrey O. Gustafson 2800:Jeffrey O. Gustafson 2674:Nearly Headless Nick 2497:Madman bum and angel 2079:Jeffrey O. Gustafson 3903:(formerly Salaskаn) 3873:(formerly Salaskаn) 3055:You do not have to 2949:(Let's Go Yankees!) 1380:User:Miracleimpulse 1342:, and knowing what 1271:(formerly Salaskаn) 1170:(Let's Go Yankees!) 718:User:Jason Gastrich 675:User:Republicofwiki 31:request for comment 3748:RFC of retribution 2839:Ryan Postlethwaite 772:User:George Felton 712:User:HistoryBuffEr 663:User:Videmus Omnia 229:email was disabled 199:TheInformantofInfo 3904: 3874: 3726:Ryulong apolgized 3416:User:Velocicaptor 3255: 3180: 3137: 3076: 3064: 3057:assume good faith 2950: 2934: 2063: 2051: 1986:Strongly support 1966: 1831: 1272: 1171: 1155: 998:(now archived at 680:User: Deco Da Man 3945: 3936: 3902: 3899: 3894: 3889: 3872: 3869: 3864: 3859: 3847: 3842: 3837: 3811:content disputes 3796:Outside view by 3786: 3780: 3734:very good reason 3713:Outside view by 3703: 3698: 3693: 3668: 3662: 3610: 3604: 3574:Outside view by 3565: 3560: 3555: 3544: 3539: 3534: 3478: 3475: 3473: 3403:Outside view by 3325: 3319: 3308: 3307: 3303: 3299:. It took me 1 3288:Outside view by 3248: 3205: 3199: 3173: 3130: 3092:Outside view by 3082: 3077: 3074: 3069: 3062: 3048: 3046: 3043: 3039: 3036: 3031: 3004: 2961: 2940: 2928: 2919: 2909: 2895: 2893: 2891: 2889: 2887: 2863:The Evil Spartan 2837:Outside view by 2820: 2788: 2782: 2739:The Evil Spartan 2705:The Evil Spartan 2680: 2675: 2651: 2642: 2627: 2624: 2622: 2606: 2597: 2582: 2573: 2531:The Evil Spartan 2477: 2475: 2428: 2423: 2375:The Rambling Man 2359: 2354: 2349: 2339: 2324: 2321: 2319: 2244:Outside view by 2223: 2218: 2204: 2202: 2199: 2195: 2192: 2187: 2144: 2124: 2069: 2064: 2061: 2056: 2049: 2043: 2036: 2023: 2013: 1965: 1963: 1952: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1897: 1894: 1891: 1888: 1847: 1829: 1791:Outside view by 1767: 1763: 1709: 1703: 1682: 1676: 1644: 1641: 1639: 1612: 1609: 1607: 1587: 1581: 1483: 1477: 1435: 1429: 1270: 1267: 1262: 1257: 1193:Assume bad faith 1185: 1183: 1161: 1149: 1120: 1112: 1108: 1067:The Evil Spartan 749:User:Civilwarguy 743:ridiculous block 724:User:Meisterchef 347:) - was blocked 311:) -blocked as a 167:Scissormecirces5 64: 38: 3953: 3952: 3948: 3947: 3946: 3944: 3943: 3942: 3941: 3932: 3917: 3897: 3892: 3887: 3867: 3862: 3857: 3801: 3784: 3778: 3738:appropriate ANI 3718: 3701: 3696: 3691: 3666: 3660: 3608: 3602: 3579: 3542: 3537: 3532: 3471: 3469: 3466: 3408: 3323: 3317: 3305: 3301: 3300: 3293: 3203: 3197: 3097: 3028: 3002: 2959: 2948: 2885: 2883: 2881: 2879: 2877: 2842: 2818: 2786: 2780: 2691: 2673: 2620: 2618: 2615: 2473: 2426: 2419: 2357: 2352: 2347: 2337: 2317: 2315: 2312: 2249: 2184: 2142: 2115: 2041: 2032: 1961: 1950: 1938: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1895: 1892: 1889: 1886: 1845: 1796: 1707: 1701: 1680: 1674: 1637: 1635: 1632: 1605: 1603: 1600: 1585: 1579: 1481: 1475: 1433: 1427: 1293: 1265: 1260: 1255: 1181: 1169: 1133: 1097: 1056: 924: 872:- asked to AGF. 866:- asked to AGF. 834: 800: 669:User:ZordZapper 602:) - no warning. 586:) - no warning. 570:) - no warning. 211:) - no warning. 151: 141: 119: 117:Desired outcome 102: 62: 56:dispute with a 34: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3951: 3949: 3940: 3939: 3916: 3913: 3909: 3908: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3800: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3717: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3578: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3550: 3528: 3523:Stephan Schulz 3520: 3512: 3501: 3486: 3407: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3292: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3271:121.208.181.37 3265:121.208.181.37 3234: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3163: 3162: 3157:121.208.181.37 3096: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3052: 3026: 3018: 3009: 2999: 2986: 2967: 2954: 2944: 2925: 2901: 2869: 2868: 2841: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2825: 2815: 2796: 2774: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2690: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2668: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2567: 2562:picture popups 2553: 2545: 2536: 2527: 2511: 2493: 2481: 2468: 2457: 2445: 2433: 2415: 2405: 2389: 2380: 2372: 2364: 2344: 2332: 2307: 2295: 2248: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2229: 2212:Sr13 is almost 2208: 2182: 2174: 2165: 2149: 2139: 2128: 2112: 2094: 2075: 2047: 2029: 2005: 1993: 1984: 1970: 1957: 1945: 1911: 1902: 1882:Andrew Lenahan 1878: 1864: 1853: 1841: 1825: 1795: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1775: 1774: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1745:121.208.181.37 1723:I replaced it 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1620: 1575: 1574: 1571: 1568: 1565: 1562: 1559:Non-Commercial 1551: 1548: 1542: 1539: 1536: 1533: 1530: 1527: 1524: 1521: 1518: 1515: 1512: 1505: 1497: 1496: 1494: 1490: 1489: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1466: 1459: 1455: 1449: 1414: 1413: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1392: 1389: 1386: 1383: 1376: 1373: 1369: 1366: 1359: 1353: 1350: 1347: 1336: 1321: 1292: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1276: 1245: 1231: 1226: 1220: 1214: 1208: 1202: 1189: 1175: 1165: 1146: 1132: 1129: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1119: 1092: 1091: 1072: 1055: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 923: 917: 916: 915: 914: 913: 908: 903: 898: 893: 888: 883: 878: 873: 867: 861: 856: 851: 846: 833: 830: 829: 828: 827: 826: 821: 816: 811: 799: 796: 795: 794: 790: 789: 788: 787: 781: 775: 769: 763: 757: 755:User:AfroPedia 752: 746: 732: 730:User:Autocracy 727: 721: 715: 709: 704: 699: 696:User:Mmckinnie 693: 691:User:LOrdSteiN 688: 686:User:TheN0ble2 683: 677: 672: 666: 658: 654: 653: 652: 651: 635: 622:Stupid swimmer 619: 603: 590:69.181.137.212 587: 571: 553: 552:warns vandals. 544: 543: 542: 541: 525: 505: 483:121.208.181.37 480: 464: 448: 432: 416: 400: 384: 368: 355:Omega Big Slim 352: 332: 316: 296: 280: 264: 248: 232: 212: 196: 180: 162: 150: 147: 140: 137: 136: 135: 132: 129: 126: 123: 118: 115: 101: 98: 92: 91: 90: 67: 46: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3950: 3938: 3935: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3925: 3921: 3914: 3912: 3907: 3901: 3900: 3895: 3890: 3883: 3882: 3877: 3871: 3870: 3865: 3860: 3853: 3852: 3851: 3848: 3843: 3838: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3829: 3826: 3821: 3817: 3814: 3812: 3809:disguised as 3808: 3799: 3795: 3791: 3787: 3781: 3775: 3774: 3773: 3770: 3766: 3762: 3758: 3754: 3750: 3749: 3743: 3739: 3735: 3731: 3727: 3723: 3722: 3716: 3715:BlueSapphires 3712: 3708: 3705: 3704: 3699: 3694: 3687: 3683: 3682: 3673: 3669: 3663: 3656: 3655: 3654: 3651: 3647: 3643: 3639: 3635: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3626: 3621: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3611: 3605: 3599: 3595: 3591: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3585: 3577: 3573: 3569: 3566: 3561: 3556: 3551: 3549: 3546: 3545: 3540: 3535: 3529: 3527: 3524: 3521: 3519: 3516: 3513: 3511: 3508: 3505: 3502: 3500: 3496: 3492: 3491: 3487: 3485: 3482: 3479: 3477: 3463: 3462: 3461: 3458: 3457: 3454: 3453: 3446: 3444: 3440: 3436: 3432: 3428: 3423: 3421: 3417: 3412: 3406: 3402: 3398: 3394: 3390: 3386: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3375: 3371: 3367: 3362: 3360: 3356: 3353: 3350: 3347: 3343: 3339: 3336: 3333: 3329: 3322: 3314: 3312: 3298: 3291: 3287: 3275: 3272: 3268: 3266: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3254: 3251: 3247: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3210: 3206: 3200: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3183: 3179: 3176: 3172: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3161: 3158: 3155: 3152: 3151:without cause 3148: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3136: 3133: 3129: 3123: 3121: 3117: 3115: 3112: 3110: 3106: 3102: 3095: 3091: 3087: 3084: 3083: 3078: 3070: 3060: 3058: 3053: 3051: 3047: 3040: 3027: 3025: 3022: 3019: 3017: 3014: 3010: 3008: 3005: 3000: 2998: 2995: 2993: 2992: 2987: 2985: 2982: 2978: 2977: 2972: 2968: 2966: 2963: 2962: 2955: 2953: 2947: 2943: 2939: 2938: 2932: 2926: 2924: 2921: 2920: 2918: 2915: 2908: 2907: 2902: 2900: 2897: 2896: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2867: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2847: 2840: 2836: 2832: 2829: 2826: 2824: 2821: 2816: 2814: 2811: 2807: 2806: 2801: 2797: 2795: 2792: 2791: 2789: 2783: 2775: 2773: 2770: 2767: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2755: 2752: 2749: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2740: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2731: 2728: 2725: 2721: 2720:Videmus Omnia 2715: 2710: 2709: 2706: 2701: 2695: 2688: 2684: 2681: 2676: 2669: 2667: 2664: 2661: 2655: 2652: 2650: 2644: 2643: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2631: 2628: 2626: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2607: 2605: 2599: 2598: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2581: 2575: 2574: 2568: 2566: 2563: 2559: 2554: 2552: 2549: 2546: 2544: 2541: 2537: 2535: 2532: 2528: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2517: 2512: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2492: 2489: 2487: 2486:Videmus Omnia 2482: 2480: 2476: 2469: 2467: 2464: 2463: 2458: 2456: 2453: 2452:Bennyboyz3000 2449: 2446: 2444: 2441: 2438: 2434: 2432: 2429: 2424: 2422: 2416: 2414: 2411: 2409: 2406: 2404: 2401: 2398: 2394: 2390: 2388: 2385: 2381: 2379: 2376: 2373: 2371: 2368: 2365: 2363: 2360: 2355: 2350: 2345: 2343: 2340: 2333: 2331: 2328: 2325: 2323: 2308: 2306: 2303: 2300: 2296: 2294: 2291: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2283: 2282: 2279: 2273: 2270: 2265: 2263: 2260:I recall the 2258: 2255: 2254: 2247: 2243: 2239: 2236: 2233: 2230: 2228: 2225: 2224: 2219: 2213: 2209: 2207: 2203: 2196: 2183: 2181: 2178: 2175: 2173: 2170: 2166: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2155: 2150: 2148: 2145: 2140: 2138: 2135: 2134: 2129: 2127: 2123: 2120: 2119: 2113: 2111: 2108: 2107: 2101: 2100: 2095: 2093: 2090: 2086: 2085: 2080: 2076: 2074: 2071: 2070: 2065: 2057: 2048: 2046: 2040: 2037: 2035: 2030: 2028: 2025: 2024: 2022: 2019: 2012: 2011: 2006: 2004: 2001: 1998: 1994: 1992: 1989: 1988:BlueSapphires 1985: 1983: 1980: 1978: 1977: 1971: 1969: 1964: 1958: 1956: 1953: 1946: 1944: 1941: 1937: 1929: 1921: 1912: 1910: 1907: 1903: 1901: 1898: 1883: 1879: 1877: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1863: 1860: 1857: 1854: 1852: 1849: 1848: 1842: 1840: 1836: 1832: 1826: 1824: 1821: 1817: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1809: 1805: 1802: 1801: 1794: 1790: 1786: 1783: 1780: 1776: 1773: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1749: 1746: 1741: 1737: 1734: 1731: 1728: 1725: 1722: 1719: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1710: 1704: 1697: 1696: 1687: 1683: 1677: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1666: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1648: 1645: 1643: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1619: 1616: 1613: 1611: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1588: 1582: 1572: 1569: 1566: 1563: 1560: 1556: 1552: 1549: 1547: 1543: 1540: 1537: 1534: 1531: 1528: 1525: 1522: 1519: 1516: 1513: 1510: 1506: 1503: 1499: 1498: 1495: 1492: 1491: 1488: 1484: 1478: 1472: 1467: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1453: 1452: 1450: 1447: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1436: 1430: 1424: 1420: 1411: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1393: 1390: 1387: 1384: 1381: 1377: 1374: 1370: 1367: 1364: 1360: 1358: 1357:Tau Gamma Phi 1354: 1351: 1348: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1334: 1331: 1328: 1325: 1322: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1314: 1311: 1308: 1304: 1299: 1298: 1290: 1284: 1281: 1277: 1275: 1269: 1268: 1263: 1258: 1251: 1246: 1244: 1241: 1237: 1232: 1230: 1227: 1224: 1221: 1218: 1215: 1212: 1209: 1206: 1203: 1201: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1188: 1184: 1176: 1174: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1159: 1153: 1147: 1145: 1142: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1130: 1128: 1118: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1103: 1101: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1078: 1076: 1075:Videmus Omnia 1073: 1071: 1068: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1053: 1047: 1044: 1042: 1041:Videmus Omnia 1038: 1037: 1036: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1003: 1001: 997: 993: 989: 986: 982: 979: 975: 973: 969: 965: 960: 957: 952: 949: 946: 943: 939: 935: 932: 927: 922: 921:Videmus Omnia 918: 912: 909: 907: 904: 902: 899: 897: 894: 892: 889: 887: 884: 882: 879: 877: 874: 871: 868: 865: 862: 860: 857: 855: 852: 850: 847: 844: 841: 840: 839: 838: 837: 831: 825: 822: 820: 817: 815: 812: 810: 807: 806: 805: 804: 803: 797: 792: 791: 785: 784:User:Anonyymi 782: 779: 776: 773: 770: 767: 764: 761: 758: 756: 753: 750: 747: 744: 740: 736: 733: 731: 728: 725: 722: 719: 716: 713: 710: 708: 705: 703: 700: 697: 694: 692: 689: 687: 684: 681: 678: 676: 673: 670: 667: 664: 661: 660: 659: 656: 655: 649: 646: 643: 639: 636: 633: 630: 627: 623: 620: 617: 614: 611: 607: 604: 601: 598: 595: 591: 588: 585: 582: 579: 575: 574:67.182.79.246 572: 569: 566: 563: 559: 556: 555: 554: 551: 546: 545: 539: 536: 533: 529: 526: 523: 519: 516: 513: 509: 506: 502: 498: 494: 491: 488: 484: 481: 478: 475: 472: 468: 465: 462: 459: 456: 452: 449: 446: 443: 440: 436: 433: 430: 427: 424: 420: 417: 414: 411: 408: 404: 401: 398: 395: 392: 388: 385: 382: 379: 376: 372: 369: 366: 363: 360: 356: 353: 350: 346: 343: 340: 336: 333: 330: 327: 324: 320: 317: 314: 310: 307: 304: 300: 297: 294: 291: 288: 284: 281: 278: 275: 272: 268: 267:63.215.29.157 265: 262: 259: 256: 252: 249: 246: 243: 240: 236: 233: 230: 226: 223: 220: 216: 213: 210: 207: 204: 200: 197: 194: 191: 188: 184: 183:George Felton 181: 178: 175: 172: 168: 165: 164: 163: 160: 159: 158: 156: 148: 146: 145: 138: 133: 130: 127: 124: 121: 120: 116: 114: 112: 108: 99: 97: 96: 88: 85: 82: 79: 76: 72: 69: 68: 66: 59: 55: 51: 45: 40: 37: 32: 27: 26: 19: 3933: 3930: 3919: 3918: 3910: 3885: 3855: 3822: 3818: 3804: 3802: 3768: 3764: 3747: 3745: 3742:two actually 3733: 3729: 3725: 3724: 3720: 3719: 3689: 3685: 3597: 3594:this comment 3580: 3530: 3515:Tim Q. Wells 3504:Sean William 3488: 3467: 3459: 3450: 3447: 3442: 3438: 3426: 3424: 3418:, discussed 3413: 3409: 3363: 3348: 3334: 3321:blockedproxy 3315: 3294: 3261: 3150: 3146: 3124: 3118: 3098: 3065: 3056: 3032: 2990: 2974: 2957: 2936: 2911: 2910: 2905: 2904: 2876: 2870: 2854: 2845: 2843: 2803: 2777: 2776: 2760: 2726: 2716: 2712: 2697: 2692: 2648: 2639: 2637:My mistake. 2616: 2603: 2594: 2579: 2570: 2514: 2460: 2450:. Please. - 2420: 2392: 2313: 2298: 2284: 2274: 2272:discussion. 2266: 2259: 2256: 2251: 2250: 2214: 2211: 2188: 2177:Tim Q. Wells 2152: 2131: 2117: 2105: 2098: 2082: 2052: 2033: 2015: 2014: 2009: 2008: 1975: 1913: 1885: 1843: 1810: 1806: 1803: 1798: 1797: 1760: 1754: 1739: 1659: 1655: 1633: 1601: 1576: 1558: 1554: 1553:Cjmarsicano 1462: 1415: 1309: 1300: 1295: 1294: 1253: 1157: 1127: 1105: 1098: 1087: 1083: 1058: 1057: 1004: 976: 953: 941: 938:indefinitely 937: 928: 925: 835: 801: 774:- see above. 742: 738: 735:User:Xterra1 702:User:Infodmz 644: 638:Original MIB 628: 612: 596: 580: 564: 549: 534: 514: 500: 496: 489: 473: 457: 441: 425: 409: 393: 377: 361: 348: 341: 325: 312: 305: 289: 273: 257: 241: 228: 221: 205: 189: 173: 155:past 3 weeks 154: 152: 143: 142: 103: 94: 93: 83: 77: 57: 53: 47: 43: 35: 28: 3825:Petri Krohn 3807:hate groups 3798:Petri Krohn 3755:all week - 3730:get over it 2859:red herring 2106:Woohookitty 2099:Woohookitty 1517:"Trollporn" 1509:Greg Felton 1402:everything. 606:Timmymcslut 558:DTHEDRAGON3 403:Cjmarsicano 299:Civilwarguy 139:Description 111:CAT:UNBLOCK 3915:Discussion 3246:JamesMLane 3171:JamesMLane 3128:JamesMLane 3094:JamesMLane 2981:<*: --> 2855:0 warnings 2810:<*: --> 2435:As above. 2210:I concur. 2089:<*: --> 1962:SlimVirgin 1906:Burntsauce 1622:Note that 1458:returning. 1236:Urbanmeans 1207:ionas68224 956:SlimVirgin 931:2007-06-17 778:User:Bacta 737:- blocked 528:Piratelime 371:Rick lay95 3359:MadmanBot 3101:this post 3013:Acalamari 2931:Review Me 2766:Mackensen 2748:Mackensen 2548:Anchoress 2367:Catchpole 2169:Acalamari 1856:Mackensen 1779:Mackensen 1363:J.D. Ryan 1152:Review Me 1141:Everyking 251:YourRaajV 215:Trollporn 3638:slashdot 3452:MastCell 3439:your own 3405:MastCell 3352:contribs 3338:contribs 3244:of us." 3011:Indeed. 2976:Shazaam! 2942:Contribs 2846:required 2828:jpgordon 2805:Shazaam! 2730:contribs 2462:MastCell 2437:Picaroon 2421:Krakatoa 2133:MastCell 2084:Shazaam! 1313:contribs 1297:section. 1291:Response 1219:contribs 1197:*Dan T.* 1163:Contribs 1100:Skerlnik 1016:WP:BLOCK 1012:WP:CIVIL 824:WP:CIVIL 814:WP:BLOCK 648:contribs 632:contribs 616:contribs 600:contribs 584:contribs 568:contribs 538:contribs 518:contribs 493:contribs 477:contribs 461:contribs 445:contribs 429:contribs 413:contribs 397:contribs 381:contribs 365:contribs 345:contribs 329:contribs 313:probable 309:contribs 293:contribs 277:contribs 261:contribs 245:contribs 225:contribs 209:contribs 193:contribs 177:contribs 81:contribs 3779:Ryūlóng 3661:Ryūlóng 3650:0reteki 3646:be bold 3625:0reteki 3620:comment 3603:Ryūlóng 3584:0reteki 3576:0reteki 3342:Ryulong 3198:Ryūlóng 3105:WP:AN/I 3021:0reteki 2991:Stephen 2906:Cheers, 2778:~Kylu ( 2540:0reteki 2408:Jaranda 2290:GRBerry 2278:GRBerry 2246:GRBerry 2034:ALKIVAR 2010:Cheers, 1997:Mike H. 1976:Stephen 1868:Malcolm 1830:HAIRBOY 1816:pschemp 1793:pschemp 1702:Ryūlóng 1675:Ryūlóng 1580:Ryūlóng 1476:Ryūlóng 1428:Ryūlóng 1240:0reteki 1039:Moved. 1028:pschemp 1020:WP:BITE 1008:WP:SOCK 819:WP:BITE 508:0reteki 419:Gotonow 335:Xterra1 235:Borlath 71:Ryulong 3846:Exeunt 3623:begin. 3564:Exeunt 3431:salted 3147:a week 3003:Durova 2960:Kurykh 2819:Durova 2769:(talk) 2751:(talk) 2400:(talk) 2397:Friday 2384:Ghirla 2232:Ral315 2222:larity 2143:Durova 2122:scribe 1859:(talk) 1846:Kurykh 1782:(talk) 1740:before 1463:rarely 1406:etc.). 1344:WP:IAR 1090:above. 996:WP:ANI 968:WP:ANI 809:WP:AGF 319:Radfax 58:single 3642:4chan 3634:4chan 3490:Andre 3328:Yamla 3075:NIMUM 2663:Haemo 2641:T Rex 2596:T Rex 2572:T Rex 2558:Zocky 2516:Andre 2427:Katie 2393:every 2302:Navou 2253:view. 2217:Singu 2167:Yes. 2154:Andre 2062:NIMUM 1800:view. 1766:demon 1660:after 1225:email 1111:demon 1088:below 1018:, or 985:bitey 964:WP:AN 739:twice 550:never 522:4chan 501:after 497:after 451:Bacta 349:twice 16:< 3841:iris 3598:only 3559:iris 3495:talk 3429:was 3420:here 3393:desk 3389:talk 3374:desk 3370:talk 3346:talk 3332:talk 3311:BRFA 2724:talk 2649:talk 2604:talk 2590:this 2580:talk 2521:talk 2505:desk 2501:talk 2348:Jmlk 2159:talk 1872:talk 1820:talk 1656:zero 1307:talk 1213:talk 1032:talk 642:talk 626:talk 610:talk 594:talk 578:talk 562:talk 532:talk 512:talk 487:talk 471:talk 455:talk 439:talk 423:talk 407:talk 391:talk 375:talk 359:talk 339:talk 323:talk 303:talk 287:talk 271:talk 255:talk 239:talk 219:talk 203:talk 187:talk 171:talk 87:logs 75:talk 54:same 3920:All 3898:ran 3888:Mel 3868:ran 3858:Mel 3836:Alt 3744:). 3702:ran 3692:Mel 3686:you 3582:on. 3554:Alt 3543:ran 3533:Mel 3443:ask 3122:). 3103:to 3045:mit 3042:her 2917:hts 2914:Lig 2679:{C} 2440:(t) 2338:日本穣 2335:··· 2262:RfA 2201:mit 2198:her 2118:WjB 2021:hts 2018:Lig 1951:日本穣 1893:bli 1444:To 1346:is. 1266:ran 1256:Mel 1084:but 966:or 107:RFA 3893:sa 3863:sa 3813:" 3788:) 3785:竜龍 3697:sa 3670:) 3667:竜龍 3612:) 3609:竜龍 3538:sa 3497:) 3472:is 3464:- 3395:) 3391:– 3376:) 3372:– 3324:}} 3318:{{ 3207:) 3204:竜龍 3061:. 3038:ki 3035:Wi 2988:-- 2979:- 2973:- 2969:-- 2927:-- 2894:te 2892:ai 2890:hw 2888:et 2886:tl 2884:os 2880:an 2878:Ry 2808:- 2802:- 2798:-- 2790:) 2645:| 2621:is 2600:| 2576:| 2560:| 2523:) 2507:) 2503:– 2495:— 2382:-- 2318:is 2194:ki 2191:Wi 2161:) 2103:-- 2096:-- 2087:- 2081:- 2077:-- 1896:nd 1890:ar 1887:St 1884:- 1874:) 1866:— 1837:) 1818:| 1711:) 1708:竜龍 1684:) 1681:竜龍 1638:is 1630:- 1606:is 1589:) 1586:竜龍 1485:) 1482:竜龍 1461:I 1437:) 1434:竜龍 1425:.— 1332:, 1329:, 1326:, 1261:sa 1252:. 1030:| 1014:, 157:. 65:. 33:. 3805:" 3782:( 3740:( 3664:( 3606:( 3507:@ 3493:( 3481:☺ 3476:n 3474:o 3470:l 3468:A 3387:( 3368:( 3349:· 3344:( 3335:· 3330:( 3306:2 3304:⁄ 3302:1 3253:c 3250:t 3201:( 3178:c 3175:t 3135:c 3132:t 3108:( 3081:» 3073:A 3068:« 3063:— 3030:~ 2946:@ 2937:R 2933:) 2929:( 2882:P 2787:t 2784:| 2781:u 2727:· 2722:( 2630:☺ 2625:n 2623:o 2619:l 2617:A 2519:( 2499:( 2358:7 2353:1 2327:☺ 2322:n 2320:o 2316:l 2314:A 2235:» 2186:~ 2157:( 2068:» 2060:A 2055:« 2050:— 2042:☢ 2039:™ 1939:t 1935:e 1931:p 1927:m 1923:i 1919:r 1915:K 1870:( 1835:☎ 1833:( 1828:C 1762:^ 1705:( 1678:( 1647:☺ 1642:n 1640:o 1636:l 1634:A 1615:☺ 1610:n 1608:o 1604:l 1602:A 1583:( 1577:— 1479:( 1473:— 1431:( 1310:· 1305:( 1222:| 1216:| 1210:| 1167:@ 1158:R 1154:) 1150:( 1107:^ 845:, 650:) 645:· 640:( 634:) 629:· 624:( 618:) 613:· 608:( 597:· 592:( 581:· 576:( 565:· 560:( 535:· 530:( 515:· 510:( 490:· 485:( 474:· 469:( 458:· 453:( 442:· 437:( 426:· 421:( 410:· 405:( 394:· 389:( 378:· 373:( 362:· 357:( 342:· 337:( 326:· 321:( 306:· 301:( 290:· 285:( 274:· 269:( 258:· 253:( 242:· 237:( 222:· 217:( 206:· 201:( 190:· 185:( 174:· 169:( 89:) 84:· 78:· 73:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Requests for comment/Ryulong - Knowledge

Index