User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite/archive17

Reply

I have been focusing on mainspace. I have been already been told that. I plan to have at least 2500+ quality mainspace edits out of 10,000+ edits before trying the RFA. Thanks anyway!--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 01:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

MFD

Want to MFD this useless junk again? Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits? I'll full support deletion. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Note

Believe it or not, I appreciated your BLP concerns on Saeb Erekat - and I think it helped us reach a far less inflammatory version and far more encyclopedic than it would have been without your guidance.

Currently, there is a similar problem, but from the other direction, on Avigdor Liberman. I'd respectfully request your input on the issue.

Here is the start of the related talk: [1].

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This page still needs your attention. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC) correcting typo 23:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I request you review the following edit summaries.

• "rm non-WP:RS and soapbox context." Nickhh, 20:41, 9 April 2008
• "All your sources are non-RS or misattributed." Nickhh, 20:49, 9 April 2008

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

p.s. This should probably be connected with activity on Saeb Erekat.

• TalkPage: "The massacre claims were not "refuted"" Nickhh, 20:54, 14 February 2008
• TalkPage: "Nickhh, the massacre, grave digging, coverup, and obliteration of the entire camp from existence claims were indeed refuted. We have multiple high-quality sources within the article saying just that." (6 sources provided) Jaakobou 05:04, 15 February 2008
• "Remove whole controversy/criticism section" - Nickhh, 20:10, 6 April 2008

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection of User talk:Jéské Couriano

Dude. He doesn't want it. [2]. I already offered. Pedro :  Chat  23:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I know, I saw, but it was getting stupid and it can easily be stopped. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's intense. I guess if Jeske is happy to take the flak then up to him. All power to his right arm. Got to love the admin bit at times.... :) Pedro :  Chat  23:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

While protection *can* stop it, they'll just go after other users. Protection in this case is worse than blocking. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v X of Swords)} 00:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Tagging

Seriously Calton, you've had numerous admins telling you to stop tagging every person you warn with {{temporary userpage}}. I'm now formally telling you to stop tagging user talk pages as such.

Wrong. I've had a couple of people -- apparently not understanding actual policy and actual practice -- complaining. Excess pages get deleted all the time, and if you have a problem with that, perhaps you ought to take it up with the admins who are doing the actual deleting. Actual evidence of actual policy and practice, please, instead of vague handwaving, vague worries, and vague threats, please. --Calton | Talk 14:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You've been warned Calton, simple as that. There is no policy saying you delete these pages, certainly not speedily and not all those you tag are going to be blocked. You've been asked to stop by about 5 different admins - I strongly suggest you do.

"Because I said so". VERY convincing rhetorical technique. Any updates on when you'll tell me 1) the actual reason not to tag them?; 2) the actual policy saving spammer pages for eternity?; 3) the actual problems and/or disruption caused by the tagging?; 4) the actual policy or policy interpretation I'm supposed to be violating?: 5) evidence that you've taken up your concerns with those who actually carry out the deletions, who are presumably actually causing whatever vaguely defined harm you're alleging? Hint: {{temporary userpage}} =/= "speedy deletion", no matter how you bend the meaning of words.

I'm well within policy and practice -- and definitely improving the encyclopedia -- and you need to provide even the slightest justification or reasoning why I'm not. Again, "Because I said so" is not a reason. --Calton | Talk 14:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You show me the part of the deletion policy that states that talk pages of news users are deleted... There isn't one. You are tagging pages of people that aren't even blocked, some are even very unlikely to be blocked. This is disruptive because these talk pages shouldn't be deleted. No more wikilawyering, just stop it. [

Wikilawyering? Now you're just being ridiculous. You avoided every single question -- including the one about the actual admins doing the actual deleting, so presumably causing ACTUAL harm by your lights -- and, having nothing to fall back on but vague handwaving and footstamping, you have to resort to crying "wikilawyering"?

This is disruptive because these talk pages shouldn't be deleted. - That's not so much wikilawyering as it is begging the question. Again, "Because I said so" is not a reason -- and, again, why are some admins regularly deleting such pages if they're not supposed to? Perhaps you should leave some vague threats on their user talk pages, too.

You are tagging pages of people that aren't even blocked, some are even very unlikely to be blocked. - That statement is, how do you say, true only on a technicality: I tag pages of people who are about to be blocked or should be -- pages that, if the blocking admin does their due diligence would leave a block notice -- with its built-in {{temporary userpage}} notice, and what were you claiming about such pages not being deleted? -- but frequently don't, so the pages would otherwise remain for eternity. Talk pages of spammers and creators of user pages disguised as spam, of whom few -- if any -- will return after their initial attempts fail. Would you care to point out all of these people who "are even very unlikely to be blocked"? Betcha can't dredge up more than a few, if any whatsoever: I, however, can fill this page with counter-examples.

But hey, let's read the text, like you wanted me to: This userpage has been identified as inactive and containing no versions requiring archiving. It will be deleted after a reasonable period of time. You show me the part that requires the archiving...there isn't any. --Calton | Talk 15:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• This has come up at WP:AN. FYI. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

WP/AN

Since you've declined to provide any actual rationale to me other than vague threats, perhaps you feel up to providing something for the fine folks at WP:AN -- including why you're so militant about this to begin with. Actual reasons would help. --Calton | Talk 15:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Policies

"I hate this attitude that new users deserve to be bitten if the haven't read every policy and guideline." I bet the users who advocate this haven't read most of the policies and guidelines. Thanks for the support of newcomers. --Blechnic (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

You recently blocked 82.235.183.98 for 24 hours. That IP is an open Tor node. Why the 24 hour block? Are you a complete moron? Thank you. 74.69.77.104 (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

clearing the air...

I bought you a beer - just to say that I think we've both said our piece about the posting / reposting stuff, and I hope I didn't upset or stress you out too much.. Our disagreement about the best course of action won't really cause the wiki too much harm, and it certainly won't stop you from being a tip top wikipedian! cheers! Privatemusings (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

My RFA has closed

My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence § t/e 18:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Tagging by Calton - No resolution

This thread has now been archived at AN and I don't see that there was any resolution. As I noted at TfD, I have been removing all instances of {{temporary userpage}} posted by Calton that were either duplicative of indef block tags or were on the page of a non-indef blocked user. Calton is probably right most of the time that these users should be indef blocked, this just isn't the right way to effect this. I find it interesting though that Calton often responds to blame the admins who are doing the deleting if there are errors, yet Calton is reverting my removals of the tag. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we might need to move to blocking if he carries on. There was clearly a consensus on AN that his taggings were inappropriate, most people that commented said so. A block would be protective (so appropriate) because it would stop him continuing his disruptive tagging. How do you read the consensus of the AN thread? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-reading the whole thread it's clearer than I had thought. The only ones speaking in Calton's favor are clear that Calton is probably fairly accurate in identifying promotional usernames and spamm but that these things need to be sent to WP:UAA or WP:AIV for blocking before tagging and then they should be tagged with an indef block tag. Hopefully the template will go down the tubes here shortly. Calton made a comment that my removal of duplicative tags was unnecessary - maybe, unless the tag gets deleted - but Calton replacing a tag on a non-blocked user page is really troubling and kind of over the top.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 01:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding SqueakBox and the Pro-pedophile activism article

It seems SqueakBox is bent on engaging in another edit war. He did not heed your advice and has yet again reinserted the contested material without really trying to discuss it on the Talk Page. He has also now definitely violated the 3RR rule. Thus, I would like to request that he be temporarily blocked from editing, according to standard Wikipedia procedure - both for inciting and perpetuating an edit war, and for reverting more than three times material of a single article within a 24-hour period. If rules are to be observed, they have to apply to all editors, and SqueakBox is clearly in violation of policies that he is savvy to. ~ Homologeo (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the page. Whilst Squeak did violate 3RR and I was prepared to block, there were numerous other users reverting each other and therefore protection was the only option, making any block on any editor at this time punitive. I'm going to look at the history of the article over the next few days and issue some final warnings to a number of parties who were involved. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Good move on the protection of the page, though regrettable as well (since improvement can't happen in the mean time, and this negative standstill has occurred in the past). The only thing I would like for you to consider at this moment is the version on which the article will remain frozen for the next week or so. It would make sense to revert back to the least controversial version that has been in effect for quite some time now, and that was in place before this edit war began, which was also the version that all mediation parties eventually agreed on and that got any sort of consensus in the past. ~ Homologeo (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur about the page protection.

Regarding any changes to "the Wrong Version" though, may I suggest that those changes be done based on actual WP:CONSENSUS, rather than one person's idea of which version was the last stable version. The mediation was private, and the mediation version was never implemented. During and after the mediation there was a rewrite of the intro that was accepted quite well before the SPA-activism activity of the last couple days. But determining which version that was may not be a simple matter.

That's the problem with the dispute and the reason the page needed to be protected. Now that protection is in place, changes would best be made using the {{editprotected}} process; for that to work out, editors will need to show that there is actual consensus about the changes requested.

To be clear about this, and with full disclosure: I wrote the intro version that has been in place for some time now, after the mediation. The version I wrote is not the one that is currently in place though, and I am not saying I support the current version. I do support the version I wrote, and apparently others do also since they didn't change it much, until the last couple days when the SPAs got going. So, yes, I'm involved and not neutral, but no, I am not partial to the current version. What I am partial to, and what I am requesting, is that no unilateral decisions be made about how to change the protected version, and that the consensus process be respected. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The "SPA-activism" you're referring to (which I also happen to have found quite annoying) had nothing to do with the portion of the intro that SqueakBox has once again become bent on changing. And the changes he's proposing have been discussed both in-private and out-in-the-open a number of times. Besides, there definitely seemed to be consensus on this part of the intro in the past couple of months (while your version was in place), considering that this issue was put aside, and even SqueakBox stopped attempting to introduce these very same edits, after being confronted by disagreement by majority of the editors involved within this article at the time. Thus, this is definitely not just my personal view of the situation. Besides, the recent RfC dealt exactly with this same issue (albeit with a slight word difference), and it was shown that most editors agree that the version SqueakBox is advocating is unacceptable, nonsensical, and clearly POV. ~ Homologeo (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If its bias is to be ignored, surely this version should be reverted by an admin, simply because it is factually inaccurate, as explained on the talk page. Lambton ^T/_C 02:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Homologeo, I appreciate that you agree about the recent SPA-activity. And in kind, your comment goes to why I mentioned I don't particularly support the current version, so we are also in agreement there. I would be willing to review the recent changes and come up with a diff version that I personally would find appropriate, and if you and maybe some others would agree about that version, we could request the change be made. In other words, I am not advocating the current version, but I have a concern that if it's changed without an agreement in place, there could be additional problems resulting.

I suggest we await Ryan's response; perhaps we can agree on which historical version to return to, and then put it up for comment on the talk page of the article to request consensus from the others, so no-one feels this has been done off of the radar. Would that work for you? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That process has already begun. Avruch ^T 02:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I will enter a comment there. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Good solid reasoning, Jack-A-Roe. I looked at the article's history, and have voiced my opinion on the Talk Page in regards to which version I think should be restored - it's the same one you and another editor are recommending. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, good sir

Hello from the States. Anyway, I once had a user page that you were most helpful in the past with deleting/undeleting. It is many months later, and I am back in a limited capacity, with a slightly different outlook. I see you are on vacation, no matter this issue is not pressing. Is it still possible to retrieve my old user page? IvoShandor (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

WG

Hi, I've posted some new proposals at the WG wiki and would appreciate everyone's input.[3] Check also the Recent Changes there to see pages with new activity. Thanks, Elonka 06:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Ryan, I've been working on a page at the WG wiki which I'd like to port over here to the New Admin School (or at least the top section of it). Do you have a few minutes to look at it, or shall I just go ahead and port?[4] --Elonka 03:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Med case

Hi, Ryan. I filed the MedCom case for myself and IZAK. It's here. Thanks! Bstone (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the case got speedily rejected. I sent a note along to Anthony but thought I'd drop you a note as well. Bstone (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ryan: See my full response to date at User talk:IZAK#Request for mediation not accepted and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bstone vs IZAK. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.

Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 15	7 April 2008	About the Signpost

April Fools' pranks result in temporary blocks for six admins	WikiWorld: "Apples and oranges"
News and notes: 100 x 5,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Reviewers achieving excellence	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 16	14 April 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Interview with the team behind one of the 2,000th featured articles	Image placeholders debated
WikiWorld: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: Board meeting, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Featured article milestone
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Temporary userpage

Just a courtesy note, regarding the above template which you nominated for deletion, that the discussion regarding that template has concluded. The result was delete. Anthøny 13:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

May you adopt me?

Please adopt me. --Sean (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Dear Ryan, I saw you are willing to take the mediation case for IZAK and I. I am very glad for this. Should I go about filing it with the MedCom or with you directly? Thank you very very much for your interest and desire to get involved. Bstone (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you file a case at WP:RFM and as soon as everyone accepts, we'll get it speedily accepted. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. FYI, I am on the road and flying around the country for the next 2 days so my apologies if I am a bit delayed. Bstone (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ryan and Bstone: In light of the rejection by the ArbCom of Bstone's failed recent proposed RfA against me, and a similar rejection of complaints at ANI by Bstone that failed against me, it would be smart and indeed it would be the correct procedure that before yet another wasteful and wasted line of attack is undertaken by Bstone against me this time at RfM, that the still very wide open RfC initiated by Bstone at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2 with its "proposed verdicts" that was very carefully worked on and seen to by many editors very familair with the facts and issues involved, and where the vast majority of editors have rejected Bstone's claims against me, that it be brought to complete closure, obviating a lot of further time wasting. There is no point in creating confusion by keeping many editors including quite a few admins waiting to hear the end at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2 only to have yet a new drama start up at RfM that will only repeat the same story. So let's be focused and not get forgetful that there is still unresolved business at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2 that must be closed out first, and only then should one decide if the RfM should be pursued or not. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

line of attack is undertaken by Bstone against me. I do hope mediation will help us in our communication, IZAK. Under no stretch of the imagination am I attacking you. Nothing could possibly be further from the truth. I very much look forward to mediation. Bstone (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bstone: Call it what you will, you have spent your time attacking me and trying to undermine me all to no avail. Now that your request for mediation has been turned down, and you have been rejected by the ArbCom, you have still ignored what you started at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2. Therefore, at a minimum, the motions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2 must be brought to closure as well. Once that is done, I would be glad to debate and discuss anything with you on either your or my talk pages, or at WP:JUDAISM because that is where I started my complaints against you since you were the one who nominated for deletion a number of articles/stubs about synagogues and took umbrage that anyone should question your nominations, where you should have kept things in the first place and there are good Judaic editors there including a number of admins, instead of running around all over Wikipedia trying to find admins and committees to help you deal with what you should be doing on your own, talking to me directly instead of labelling everything I say a "violation" of this or that and beating around the bush. IZAK (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality?

While neither accepting nor rejecting formal mediation, because User Bstone (talk · contribs) should not be granted those choices first before trying other measues such as at MedCab (he had tentativley agreed to that as well), and with the RfC being closed only on Bstone's hearsay without any input from me as to implementation, it must be noted that in looking over some of your past interactions, you have previously had serious detailed contact with User:Bstone such as at Wikipedia talk:Ombudsmen Committee as recently as January 2008, which makes it imposssible for you to be neutral in any mediation effort/s involving Bstone. You should never have made the offer to mediate with Bstone as a party because of this and you should please recuse yourself accordingly. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

I don't know if you remember me or not, but you revoked my rollback a while ago. (long time sort of) I re-applied for it mainly because I found a rollback test (if that's what you want to call it, it's a basic read through to get to know the rollback function and where to use it and where not to use it). I know exactly what to do with rollback and what not to do and think that I'm ready for the tool. I know that what happened last time was my fault and I won't be doing that again. If you want to question me about rollback do's and don'ts, please ask away.(sort of like RfA) I do feel like I'm ready for the tool and feel like it would be a great help for me in my daily editing. (I edit music related articles, and recent changes so...yeah, lot's of vandalism) Thanks Undeath (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

NAS notice

Hi Ryan, I thought you'd want to know about Wikipedia:New admin school/Granting and revoking rollback. I just moved it out of my userspace and into the school. Acalamari 21:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Uck, look at all the policy and problems this rollback thing has caused. *Cremepuff222* 01:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 17	21 April 2008	About the Signpost

BLP deletion rules discussed amidst controversial AFD	Threat made against high school on Wikipedia, student arrested
Global login, blocking features developed	WikiWorld: "Disruptive technology"
News and notes: Wikimania security, German print Wikipedia, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Monthly updates of styleguide and policy changes	WikiProject Report: The Simpsons
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Page protection at WP:WORDS

Should be safe to undo the page protection now; see discussion here. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a few more days, I know you're busy, and if you haven't had a chance to reply, I'll ask another admin to do it. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I have ported over the first section of the WG "Dealing with disputes" page, here to the EN wiki, at Wikipedia:New admin school/Dispute resolution. If you have a chance, could you please take a look before I make it more public? Thanks, --Elonka 16:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Fred Phelps

You denied this at RFP, but I protected before you denied the request. To be honest, all I see is IP vandalism on the history. Sure, its not exactly a torrent, but its almost all there is. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

3 or 4 edits a day is not a reason to block out all IP's from an article - this can easily be dealt with by the RC patrollers. We don't want to alienate possible new users who can't edit the page constructively. I think you should unprotect. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

3 or 4 edits a day isn't much. But I re-iterate—one must also the number of *positive* IP contributions to the article and weigh them against the damage the same collection of editors are relentlessly inflicting on the content. In this case, I also think a look at the subject of the article could give fair estimation to the answer of the previous. But, I suppose we could discuss the traditional fire and flames war between the approaches of "IPs contribute a good majority of our content, we should only protect in extremities" and "So many IPs vandalise, RC can't cover everything, we should protect fairly leniently" for hours. I am supposing that I am merely of the latter approach; and you prefer the former. As I noted as RFP, I am not strongly opposing your decision, nor at the same time supporting my own rigorously—if you feel the need to remove the protection, I will not mind in the slightest. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What is a lot of vandalism?

You turned down my request for semi protection on Egyptian pyramids saying "there's not much vandalism considering how high profile the topic is" - that was at 08:33, 30 April 2008, about four hours after the request. The page was being further vandalized almost as you typed - heres the vandalism just since last night:

• 07:59, 30 April 2008 124.184.9.155 (2 edits)
• 08:44, 30 April 2008 58.107.208.121
• 08:50, 30 April 2008 121.45.32.199 (5 edits)
• 08:58, 30 April 2008 217.44.99.75
• 09:02, 30 April 2008 58.179.206.160 (3 edits)
• 14:22, 30 April 2008 64.90.250.244

The page history shows hundreds of incidents of vandalism, and almost all of it from anonymous IP's. Semi-protection would have been instant relief for any editors or bots working to remove vandalism on that page. If you will not reconsider I would at least appreciate a better explanation than "there's not much" - which just isn't true, again it was practically being vandalized as you wrote those words. You have to go back three pages just to get to the first of the month. Is that because there's so many wonderful contributions being added? Of course not, the whole list is IP vandalism and reverts, with a few nuggets here and there of real encyclopedic edits. Is there a way for me to request a second opinion? As I believe my requests absolutely fills the bill set by WP:PROT and especially WP:ROUGH Brando130 (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the second opinion I have posted a request for one on WP:ANI, I hope you don't take offense. Brando130 (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Do I have your approval?

I wouldn't bother you with this, but User:Jaakobou seems to think he has some authority in the project and I should contact you in order to be properly aprised of it. Do I have your approval to tell him to only crap in the litter-tray? After months of harrassment of people on their Talk-Pages, and a block of him, he's still doing exactly the same thing. It's particularily disturbing because this time round since his hatred and accusations are not restricted to "crack-head Arabs" but seems aimed at practicing followers of Judaism, and the testimony of victims of a pogrom (the 1929 Hebron massacre). PR^talk 16:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Note:

• PalestineRemembered has just recently started editing again and I've already noticed a few obvious issues and suggested he revert one of them and redefine his forced mentorship.
• To remind, one of the reasons PR was assigned forced mentorship was improper behavior around me, more specifically, repeatedly accusing me of being a war criminal. There was also an issue of repeatedly (50+ times) making false accusations regarding my (quickly retracted) second block on Wikipedia, an event he not only did not participate on and misread into, but clearly didn't care for my explanations either.
  • Here are "a few" diffs about this 50+ issue:
    • "Jaakobou has harassed other users and admins on talk and even been blocked for it" - LINK. (added 18:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC))
    • "Based on my previous warnings with the user (e.c. sample) ... I recommend a short block of the user, as his mentor." [5] (added 20:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC))
• I believe this is a good point in time to fully clarify to him the results of the last Arbcom and to redefine his forced mentorship.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Extra note: PalestineRmemebered was repeatedly noted, warned and blocked "01:18, 29 October 2007 GRBerry (requested by mentor)" by mentors and admins for his repetitive (mis)citation of old issues.
  • Here are "a few" diffs about this 50+ issue:
    • "Jaakobou has harassed other users and admins on talk and even been blocked for it" - LINK. (added 18:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC))
    • "Based on my previous warnings with the user (e.c. sample) ... I recommend a short block of the user, as his mentor." [6] (added 20:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC))
• Going over some of the notes he'd received from past mentors, I noticed he was also told by previous mentor Kendrick that "remove the tags [is] usually frowned upon" but one of his first edits returning to edit was a removal of such a tag without taking an active part in the discussions.

So apparently, there's already two issues addressed by previous mentors that he's returned to ignore. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC) clarify. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC) added proper linkage. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment on ANI

Hi there. Regarding your comment on ANI about my semiprotection of Egyptian pyramids, please note that I do, in fact, research and consider admin actions before I push the buttons. I don't just go "okay!" and do the admin magic thing when someone makes a request such as this one. In this case, I saw quite a lot of vandalism on what I'm sure is a popular article, and felt that it would be worth at least giving it a break from the need to do the many reverts on it. My apologies for not commenting here beforehand; I'll keep that in mind for future issues like this; I took this as a request for a second opinion, and never actually thought of checking back with you.

Please do recognize that other admins likely do, in fact, do their due diligence (such as it is here) before making a decision such as this one. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback.

I don't know if you got my previous message, but I cannot find it in your archives. I was wondering if I could file to get rollback rights again. I know that you revoked them last time and I believe that I am ready for the tool. I know the mistake I made, and I've read the rollback dos and don'ts multiple times since then. Please let me know your decision when you can. Thanks. Undeath (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Undead warrior. Appologies for the late response, I've been away for a few weeks. I've granted you the rollback tool again, I'm sure you've learnt from your mistakes but please only use it for reverting vandalism this time and not in content disputes. Best regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 12:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you back? Mediation?

Hi, Ryan. Just curious if you are back home and editing again. I am ever to desiring to continue formal mediation between IZAK and I. Thanks so much. Bstone (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As you might know WP:TOV is my baby. I created it and am actively involved in it. A few days ago IZAK inserted himself into it, despite being explicitly told that him and i should avoid each other. He has been actively posting on the talk page and has even been accused by another of being uncivil[7].

I have completely avoided posting in those sections in which IZAK is, but now he has gone :ahead and even made changes to the project :page[8]. Notice his edit summary- it's just a bit over the top. The crux of this issue is IZAK and I were told to avoid each other. I have done just that over the past few weeks. IZAK agreed to do just that [9] but clearly has not. There are so many project on Wikipedia in which his efforts put into. He agreed to work on things other than what I am working on. Yet he has come into WP:TOV, taken a decidedly contrary view point of my own and created a situation in which I do fear to further be involved in this project without major conflict. Bstone (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted him, he was quite simply out of line with that edit. I'll keep my eye out, and make it clear that he should stop interacting with you. Should he not stop, he will be blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

He's still posting on the talk page and have essentially taken over the conversation. Sigh. Bstone (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

comment on term

Hi Ryan Based on the discussion I am having with a user on al-Ghazzali, the user claims that the word "Wahabi" is derogatory and can get a person banned. But I would like to point out that the word is very mainstream in academia: [10] and corresponds to WP:NPOV. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Calton is back . . . and back at it

See: User_talk:Calton#Stop_placing_userpages_in_CAT:TEMP_that_aren.27t_indef_blocked.21 where I gave Calton what amounts to level 4im warning.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought Calton would have got the message by now that his tagging was disruptive. Thanks for warning him - I'll certainly block him myself if I see him doing it again, that's if you don't get there first. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[11] How nice. Tiptoety ^talk 22:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, I was hoping that Calton would respect this given the warning doug gave him, but his flippancy is just increasing. I fear that a block will be the only thing that will make him see sense. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Pedophile topic mentorship: Recent edits

Welcome back, Ryan, I hope your vacation went well.

I was hoping to discuss with you this edit at Wikipedia:Pedophile topic mentorship. It appears to me that the discussion was about the meta-issue of ArbCom taking these cases in secret at all, rather than about the specific case we were told should be discussed with ArbCom. Because of that, I don't see the applicability of the reasoning cited in your edit summary. Are there terms under which you feel that discussion could continue? --SSBohio 17:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going to inquire about this as well. If precedent is followed, ArbCom is unlikely to respond to inquiries of this nature, and has yet to even once fully publicly discuss blocks related to editing of pedophila-related articles. Furthermore, Ssbohio does have a point in saying that the discussion being called for on Wikipedia:Pedophile topic mentorship is not one regarding a specific case - this is more of an analysis of the general practice adopted by ArbCom as of late to discuss issues such as this in secret, deal out blocks without much explanation, and not to inform the general public of all the information and deliberation involved in the such cases. Wikipedia is supposed to be a transparent entity, and members of the community are supposed to be able to observe how admins function and what reasoning is used to instill blocks. This is why some editors are worried about the way things are going right now and want to engage in open discussion. ~ Homologeo (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

These are all interesting points, and I believe there could be some middle ground for the arbitrators to discuss these kinds of blocks without bringing the project into disrepute. As it happens, I think the VPs block was the correct course of action - those userboxes were bad, very bad in fact and if I'd have noticed it, I'd have taken the same action as DMC. It might be an idea to spark up a discussion at WT:ARBCOM about how these blocks could be handled (but please don't mention any specifics). A simple post explaining each of these kind of blocks would probably be helpful so other users know what kind of behaviour will be seen as unacceptable by ArbCom. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I would expect that VP's userboxes were meant to dance right up to the line and not cross it. He appears to have a personality that entices him to boundary pushing, especially in areas he's passionate about otherwise. Unfortunately, his stance is unpopular, so the slack someone on the other side of the issue would get isn't available to him. This isn't a bad thing per se. Can one ever be too anti-pedophile?

I do worry about the effect of such an asymmetrical policy on our neutrality, whether real or perceived. My primary passion is writing a comprehensive encyclopedia from a neutral viewpoint. I've certainly felt driven to more active measures than making userboxes, but I've resisted. You and I very much agree about bringing transparency to this process (see my comments to Morven). I feel that the topic mentorship page is a good place for the discussion, as this involves no universal policy of ArbCom, but instead a policy that fairly exclusively impacts this topic area and its editors. --SSBohio 14:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there!

Hi Ryan, I hope you had a good vacation. :) It's nice to see you active again here, and I hope you had a good time. I wanted to ask you, what did you think of Wikipedia:New admin school/Granting and revoking rollback? I had to change the wording halfway through due to a change in the userrights interface. I mentioned this page to you a few weeks ago, but I wasn't sure if you'd seen it or not. If anything, welcome back! :) Acalamari 16:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Jack Merridew

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Jack_Merridew - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't contact you about this, I was hoping to catch you on IRC. I'll be interested to hear your thoughts and I'm more than happy to discuss your concerns either here or privately. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Discuss what exactly? My opinion had been most consistent on this matter for the past three years. You did not even bother notifying me of this. What am I supposed to make out of this?

Will I be accused of disruption if I file an RFAR against him? Although the conclusion of the last one was rather solid: [12]. Will I be accused of disruption for getting stalked by him? He has developed many very cunning ways over the years...

In no way will I make any effort whatsoever to avoid him. In no way will I agree on anything concerning Davenbelle. I will not be inconvenienced the slightest bit for Davenbelle anymore. If there is anyone that will be inconvenienced will be Davenbelle. In addition the entire community will need to baby sit his current account (Jack Merridew) and all possible sockpuppets. Community seeking to unblock him should do so knowing this. Enough is enough.

-- Cat ^chi? 23:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Not avoiding. Know the old wive's tale about cats and babies? (sigh) Shenme (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not the one accused of stalking someone for three years. Stop treating me like a criminal. I am required to notify all non-indef blocked parties in any arbitration case or clarification. -- Cat ^chi? 13:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

best I start a new section

I believe it appropriate that I refrain from interacting with the WC on the AN and RFAR pages (or just above) absent a bit of clarity from you or Moreschi. I would, of course, be glad to comment. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 05:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship

I would definitely appreciate a summary of where my use of the tools has caused issues or otherwise raised eyebrows -- or tempers. If I see the pattern you are seeing, I would definitely appreciate better alternative suggestions to how I have handled certain instances. Thanks. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for getting back to me on that Tony. As I said - none of the things are major, just with a little improvement it could make you a better admin. I'll keep a check on your talk page and lend a hand wherever I can. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony is an excellent admin. You offer no examples whatsoever - let him be. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello Ryan. I think we met a while ago. But may I have rollback? I lost it before becuase nobody told me it shouldn't be used for good faith edits and non-vandalism until I missused it. I promise this time I will be more responsible, as I will carefully look at a diff before reverting it. If I'm not sure, I will leave it alone. But if it's obvious vandalism, such as page blanking, inappropriate editing such as adding cuss words, then that's when I'll use rollback. I'm not even going to use it often since I will sometimes use popups. So may I?--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 01:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Monovithya Kem

Thanks for your note. I'm not sure about whether Monovithya Kem should be restored. Could you scan the newspaper article mentioned in the article (about the subject of the article getting her father freed from jail in Cambodia, I think) and decide whether that's enough to build an article on? --Eastmain (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Re Bold at UAA

No problem, lately I've been trying to alert many reporters that some of their concerns may not fit with/fall under WP:U. It got to the point where I felt WP:BOLD and confident enough to just remove non-blatant offenses on sight. I'll continue to exhibit the care and judgment you acknowledged. Thank you for that! Cheers man. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Email

I've just sent you an email.--Urban Rose 02:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter Yarrow

I think this diff: [13] and other Celona postings on the Yarrow page may provide you with comparative texts. The outside posts JkP is concerned about do seem similar, and they are exactly what Celona threatened on the Yarrow talk page, but I fear what we have here is coincidence without proof of connection.David in DC (talk) 04:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've asked John about the edits so hopefully I'll get a response soon. Thanks for the comment. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you see he said it wasn't him? Aleta ^Sing 17:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I did. I'm still thinking it through, but not sure what else we can really do. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I just wanted you to see this since your sig was involved in this. It shouldn't be a problem, I just wanted to notify you of this. Cheers.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 05:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, and IP did the same thing to me with your sig. I hope there's no truth to it. Cheers, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Have no fear guys - this was just a troll who I blocked copying my block notice onto your page. He's created a few socks now and I've had to block quite a few of them. Just don't listen to him and deny recognition. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

RfB

Hi, Ryan. I left a question to vanTucky under his oppose that relates to you as well. If it is not too difficult, can you drop by and let me know, either their, on my talk page, or via e-mail, whatever you prefer, as to whether my understanding of your oppose was correct? Thanks. And if it means anything, you can take from this RfB that your opinion is very highly respected here in wiki (and not just by me) -- Avi (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course I can Avi, I'll certainly offer my comments on the RfB at sometime tonight - I'm just slightly busy in RL at the minute, but I'll get on with it ASAP. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, though, as a statestician, I feel duty bound to point out that any positive number is greater than zero :-P. In all seriousness, thank you for clarifying the issue, my friend. -- Avi (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Completely unrelated

Did you ever receive my e-mail that related to a mentorship situation? -- Avi (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I must admit, I've been a little lapse with checking my emails for the past week so I haven't even looked. Appologies - I'll log into hotmail and take a look, expect a reply later on tonight. Thanks for the prod. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

Quoting from one of the questions posed: Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. That is the basis for my oppose. My experience may indeed be rare or even unique, but that is the beauty of votes; if it is, it won't make any difference. Blackworm (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Coppertwig

Please be aware that future edit warring on this page will be dealt with by blocks. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wth are you telling me? I'm trying my best to help with the situation. Dorftrottel (ask) 23:54, May 8, 2008

I'm telling everyone that made a revert because protection isn't an option for an RfA so we have to use blocks instead. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Does it look like I was edit warring? Dorftrottel (warn) 00:03, May 9, 2008

I'd call that a revert, so yes it does look like you were edit warring. Especially as there were multiple reverts before you stepped in. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, in that case thank you very much. Have a nice day. See you around. Tada. Dorftrottel (complain) 00:24, May 9, 2008

accountcreator

Ta. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

<<PING>> -- Avi (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Whih means you have e-mail at your Wiki-linked account. -- Avi (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping avi - I'll take a look. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 18	2 May 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikimedia Board to expand, restructure	Arbitrator leaves Wikipedia
Bot approvals group, checkuser nominations briefly held on RfA	WikiWorld: "World domination"
News and notes: Board elections, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Did You Know ...	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 19	9 May 2008	About the Signpost

Sister Projects Interview: Wikiversity	WikiWorld: "They Might Be Giants"
News and notes: Board elections, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured content from schools and universities	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

child sexual abuse RFC

Given the longstanding problem at this article regarding the "controversy" section (the inclusion of studies by Rind and Sandfort, and how much detail they should be covered in, and whether an overly long section is a coatrack, giving a false impression of a controversy that does not exist) do you think we should file an RFC?-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I think it's time we moved away from the same old arguments and get some fresh views from uninvolved editors. Are you ok to file it? I would urge all editors to abide by the consensus of the RfC. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Your unfounded, unsupported oppose of Risker

It shocked and saddened me to see you oppose such a well-qualified candidate, especially given that I had previously held you in some esteem. This post is just to let you know that I no longer hold you in that esteem, and regret ever having done so in the first place. Bellwether ^B_C 23:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Bellwether BC. Could you elaborate on that please? I personally think Risker gets involved in far many disputes that she could stay out of, and when she does so, she gets too emotionally involved help the discussions move forward. To me, that excess drama is not something we need in administrators, but we're all entitled to our opinions, and I therefore respect yours, and every single supporter. Obviously it will pass so I must be in the minority, but my opinion is not something I can change. I wish her the best of luck, and although I opposed her, I look forward to working with her in the future. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

People are opposing "per Ryan" when your oppose is completely unsupported by ANYTHING resembling evidence (you know, diffs perhaps demonstrating what you claim). It's profoundly disappointing to me that you could oppose such a well-qualified, level-headed candidate, yet you were willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to an admin who turned out to be one of the more egregious sock puppeteers in the history of the project. It's simply made me reconsider everything I've thought about you over the course of my time on this project. Bellwether ^B_C 23:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, it's just my opinion on one RfA. People aren't opposing because of me, they obviously have similar concerns. The oppose I made was a personal oppose, I did it for my benefit, not to see the candidate fail like some people. I just don't personally trust her to make fair decisions. Which sock admin have I been supporting by the way? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Remember the "mentoring plan" you and Riana came up with a couple of months back? As for Risker, you've offered no evidence of any problematic behavior, even when asked to do so. As such, I've lost complete confidence in your judgment. Bellwether ^B_C 23:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit, if you still don't remember. And before you accuse me of holding grudges, I vigorously defended both your and Riana's judgment during your RfB. Needless to say, THAT won't be happening again, at least in your case. That you're not even willing to provide diffs for an oppose of a well-qualified RfA candidate makes me question whether or not you would promote said candidate as a 'crat, even with 80-90% support, which Risker will in all likelihood end with (and deservedly so). Opposes at RfA are not to be taken lightly, and should not be made without diffs--especially when requested. Bellwether ^B_C 23:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

In all seriousness, how does this have anything to do with me being a 'crat? If I was one, of course I'd promote Risker given the support. But anyway, I wouldn't even touch a candidate if I had an opinion of them - it's not a 'crats job to have a super vote at RfA, they're here to judge consensus and that means looking as the comments, not the candidate. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh Archtransit? Well I didn't know he was an abusive sock puppet at the time. I was just trying to help him out. RfA isn't just about providing diffs against a candidate - I was uneasy about having Risker as an admin, because I view the drama aspect of her editing to sub optimal with respect to being an administrator. There weren't diffs to give per se, it was more situations she got involved in and the reasons for doing so. When many people provide diffs they do so in an attempt to derail a request, that was not my intention in this RfA, it was just my opinion. You have your opinion - you think she's great, I have a slightly difference of opinion but that's all it is. I'd be interested to know you're previous account name, so I know exactly who I'm addressing - you can of course email me and if you know anything about me, you should know it would be treated in the strictest confidence. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I view a 'crats job as being all about judgment. And the fact that you STILL refuse to provide diffs for a rather inflammatory opinion--which your views on the "drama aspect of her editing" constitute--that could potentiall sway others to oppose (which it has done) calls into question your judgment. If you think she's a drama queen, show some diffs demonstrating that. It's quite simple really, and done all the time by good faith opposers. Bellwether ^B_C 00:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I was hoping you'd email with your previous account, but I've worked it out. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

ANI

I have filed the following at ANI: [14]. Please participate, as appropriate. David in DC (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've responded on AN/I. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, don't worry about fixing the link - I'll keep an eye out for it :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 01:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

IRC password

I'm having trouble finding info about setting / changing my IRC password. Where do I look, or what command do I use? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. I finally got help. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Graphic "big schlong" on your user page

I'm offended by the "big schlong" barnstar on your user page. I don't understand how such sexist material could possibly be proudly displayed on the page of a respected admin. I would imagine if someone had a "tight pussy" or "huge tits" barnstar on their main user page, complete with a graphic photo, they would be deleted, blocked and banned from the community. (Oddly, I only ever find expressions of anti-male sexism on user pages of admins; is that part of the admin culture?) Blackworm (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It was posted by a banned user. Dunno why Ryan liked it so much... Anyway, Ryan, unless you've built a time machine, I think you should remove those vacationing banners off your user and talk pages. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 00:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Bibliomaniac basically summed it up. It was from a banned user, and I actually thought it was quite funny so I've left it up. It's only a joke and everyone else who's commented has seen it that way as well. I take your comments to heart, but please recognise that nobody else would be blocked for that, or made to remove it. Remember, Wikipedia is not censored and some of our articles contain similar images. Oh and bib, thanks for the reminder about the vacation notice - I only left it up because I wish I still was in Egypt! Ryan Postlethwaite 00:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The policy WP:CENSOR says (emphasis mine): ...some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography)... I'm not a censorship freak either, but I think that at a minimum it's reasonable to expect to not to come across images of erect penises while browsing user space. Searches on "penis" yield a different set of expectations. The "big schlong" joke only bugs me because despite your assertion to the contrary I'm convinced "tight snatch" would not be considered funny and would indeed lead to group attacks on multiple grounds, and demands for sanctions. If you wish, I'll make such a barnstar and award it to you, and we can test my theory. (My guess is that I would be punished and vilified for being sexist and violating WP:POINT, you would be commended on your patience and/or sense of humour, and the "snatch" would be removed, leaving the "schlong" as-is.) Anyway, thanks for your response. Blackworm (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Before this thread appeared, I had looked at your page, Ryan, and the picture seemed distasteful to me. If I go to the article on penises, I should expect to see a photo (or more) of one, but not on someone's userpage. Maybe some compromise version of your page could be reached, where the award is behind a collapse box? Of course, I have a glass dildo award on my page that someone gave me; so maybe I shouldn't talk. The penis seems a bit over-the-top though. Aleta ^Sing 20:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Aleta, thank you for your concerns and ideas. Are you any good with coding? I'd certainly be willing to put it in a collapsable box if someone could do it, I just stink at things like that. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really, but I'll see if I can find an example and modify it in my sandbox. Aleta ^Sing 21:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I found some useful information at Wikipedia:Collapsible tables and [15], but I haven't been able to figure out out to make the collapsing work with the code of the table you are already using for your awards. Maybe someone better at these things than I will read this and help. Aleta ^Sing 22:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to say this earlier: thank you for collapsing the barnstar and responding so thoughtfully to my concerns despite our disagreement. Blackworm (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it be in order?

Hi Ryan. Would it be in order to notify User:Jaakobou that I intend to seek and nominate a mentor and that he is not to harass that person in public or private? What happened earlier, as partly documented here was atrocious, and has had knock-on effects ever since. In fact, your whole involvement, tiresome as it must be to you, came about directly because of this conduct. PR^talk 15:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ryan - I think I'm being stalked with reverts such as this. The article in question has been in existence for 3 years, during which time, User:GHcool has never previously edited it. It's a pretty abstruse topic, I'd find it very surprising if it is on his watch-list. I'm using a book review in an Israeli newspaper of a work a Tel Aviv University Professor that appears to debunk a popular religious myth, the newspaper claims "Under the influence of other historians who have dealt with the same issue in recent years, he argues that the exile of the Jewish people is originally a Christian myth that depicted that event as divine punishment imposed on the Jews for having rejected the Christian gospel." Clearly, this is not a fringe claim, as GHcool claims, and he's made no attempt to engage me in Talk. This is the second time he's done this in 24 hours. Should I raise this as an incident? PR^talk 18:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it could be good to raise this as an incident. Has GHcool interacted with you before? If so, you may have a point and it does look like a blind revert. What I'd suggest however is starting a thread on the article talk page, and see what other contributors think. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It is possible, judging by User:GHcools UserPage, that he has totally abandoned AGF as regards my contributions (this dates back at least a year). He has further ignored my recent communication - so in order to get his attention (and protest the shocking denial he's in over events of 2002), I have posted him here. I trust that is alright. The only thing I would say in GHcools favour is that the clips he's used from me on his UserPage are indeed representative of what I've been saying, and have not been seriously distorted by his use of them. (In one case, I could be wrong, though I'm certainly not convinced that I'm mistaken). I'm contacting you as an administrator as well as a (possibly reluctant) mentor, since I don't feel this is simply a matter of a "content dispute", we could be seeing Zez or Isarig like behavior. PR^talk 19:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have raised the point at issue as an RfC here and here. However, that still leaves the wiki-stalking as a problem. I have pointed it out to User:GHcool and he seems unconcerned. Are you saying that I should take it to the AN/I immediately, or wait and see if he interferes with the RfC (which, as an involved editor, I don't believe he should)? PR^talk 14:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand

Just in case you weren't already aware he has already been warned an uncountable number of times to control his behavior to little effect, and as your most recent dealing with him shows even Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2 has had little success in curbing his antisocial tendencies. I don't know whether he still uses betacommandbot to vandalize the pages of anyone that confronts him but he does have supporters which will place false administrative warnings on the talk pages of anyone that brings his behavior up and isn't an admin. Given that you chastised him so firmly I would suggest keeping a close eye on your personal page for vandalism and watching to make sure none of your projects are harmed in vengeance. It saddens me that some people are allowed to continue their destructive behavior after countless warnings and arbitrations, but George Orwell WAS right when he said that some people are just more equal than others. Superslash (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks

Hello, Ryan.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. I wanted to especially thank you for taking the time to review your decision, and eventually changing it. In the future, if you have any constructive criticism for me, I would greatly appreciate it if you let me know, be it on my talk page or via e-mail, as it much easier to grow as a person with help from others. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your support. -- Avi (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Early closure

Yes I am aware, and I have closed several RFAs prior to end time in the past. (My window is a maximum of 6 hours) The idea of an RFA is to determine consensus to promote a candidate, not a rigid time-bound window. As consensus has been suitably determined, and the RFA history was not volatile during the last six hours, I see no harm in closing an RFA a three hours before time for such non-controversial cases. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions on disruption and reliable sources.

Despite many, many breaches of promises he'd made, and vigorous protests, an editor previously blocked for TalkPage disruption left further abusive messages (also containing false allegations) on my TalkPage. He was blocked for this behavior a day later, as detailed here. If (as is highly likely) the conduct is repeated, how should I go about complaining of it without myself being blocked for stirring things? You've been very supportive in the past, I just need to know if you'll act promptly and decisively against such breaches, or whether I should canvas another admin to be ready to act.

I'd not bother you with this problem, or anything else, but he also told me "p.s. your recent use of JewsAgainstZionism.com has not gone unnoticed and the community has already discussed this issue." and I don't believe the claim is true. He and others have accused the JAZ group of being extremists (very strange, considering some of their own contacts) but have refused to discuss it in every case that I've been involved in.

How should I go about raising this matter in a non-confrontational fashion? JAZ have a list of top rabbis supporting their efforts, and carry lots of other good historical information, particularly testimonies from the survivors of the Holocaust and other pogroms. I really cannot believe the project is supposed to be barred to such information, coming from such a well respected group of the practitioners of Judaism. PR^talk 17:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Ryan. As I have your talkpage watchlisted, I figured I might as well drop a note that in my experience, JAZ is considered a fringe group among mainstream Orthodox Jewry. -- Avi (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's considered a fringe group - it only speaks for the 1 million non-Zionist followers of Judaism in the world. But the allegation made against JewsAgainstZionism is that it's extreme - yet again, this looks like a nasty smear for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Nor have I been pointed to any discussion of this, as claimed is in existence by User:Jaakobou.

Meanwhile, I seem to have triggered another fire-storm, supposed WP:UNDUE here. I only have reports from a second Israeli source, Haaretz, then the New York Times and the Washington Post, then CBS News, CNN News and ABC News, then the Guardian and The Independent, then a whole screed of Israeli NGO sites, along with some videos, then Aljazeera. Maybe people should help me write the encyclopedia instead of being obstructive and trying to claim these are WP:FRINGE stories! PR^talk 20:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered is wrong when he says that there is no evidence that Jews Against Zionism is a fringe group. I invite anyone who doubts this fact to read the following: [16] [17] [18] --GHcool (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(<-)Hi, Ryan. I doubt there are even one million Orthodox Jews in the entire world. JAZ and Neturei Karta have, perhaps, a few hundred adherents; maybe combined with other like-minded extremists they can number in the single thousands, worldwide, but I believe that is somewhat overstated. However, like any other fringe political group, they are prone to self-aggrandizement, misstating or selectively quoting the works of more mainstream figures to suggest those figures (historical or current) support their point of view, and gross overstatments. I would take any claim found on www.jewsagainstzionism.com or www.nkuse.com with about three stones of salt. -- Avi (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Avi that this is a fringe political group and that their statements/figures should be taken very catiously. With respect to their list of top rabis, I honestly don't believe that it could be used as a reliable source because this gives only a tiny subset of the jewish community. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Note the following disclaimer in their list of endorsements (emphasis added is my own):“The following rabbis gave their endorsements to various books published by Jews Against Zionism. Their endorsements do not necessarily mean that they approve of everything published on this website.”

Dear Ryan - I'm sorry that your TalkPage is being used in this fashion by people who, by the look of it, make a practice of wiki-stalking me here too. If I were to publicly announce the names of mentors I was using, some of these people would doubtless set on those mentors in the highly aggressive and unpleasant fashion that happened before. However, it is very good to have you available as well for purely mechanistic advice of the kind I'm asking for above.

Sadly, none of these people who've intruded on what should be our private conversation (even though we're holding it in public) seem to have much grasp of WP:POLICY, which is why their accusations against JAZ are so irrelevant. We know that this particular Brooklyn group is in a minority - though they claim it's quite a big minority, 1 million non-Zionist descendants of followers of Judaism. Even if they're exaggerating a bit (and I see no evidence or reason to think it) and were really a much smaller minority that that, it has no bearing on whether they're suitable for use as an RS. Over and over again, I've been told they're extremist - but no information on that score has ever been presented. Here and elsewhere I'm told this has been discussed, again I ask for details and get nothing. It looks as if a number of editors have a bitter, irrational hatred of one of the authentic voices of Judaism. And you should check the references we've been given - needless to say, these are political attacks on a group that cannot honestly even be labelled "fringe", let along extremist!

Hence, on top of the two questions above that are so far untouched upon, I have a third question - should I bring the evidence of this irrational opposition and hatred to AN and have those who feel this way hounded out of the project? PR^talk 16:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

PR, as I pointed out, there are likely not even one million Orthodox Jews in the entire world. JAZ numbers in the hundreds, maybe low thousands, and have exaggerated their following by a factor of at least 1000-fold. Further, as the person who suggested mentorship for you, and is as much the single reason why you are not indef banned, I do have an interest in how my suggested experiment turns out. JAZ, NKUSA, and their compatriots are undoubtedly fringe extremist sites, and unsuitable for use as sources for anything outside their own articles or the articles of their adherents. For example, the JAZ reference was just removed from Gilad Atzmon where it was being used to support claims of his anti-Israeli tendencies. I agree with that, b/c JAZ is just not reliable, no matter what they say. Lastly, wikipedia is a collaborative project; if you are going to edit on the project, you need to be open to the responses and constructive criticisms of those with whom you are working. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon wrote this very nasty screed on "The Sayanim", basically accusing most or perhaps all Jews of being willing to commit treason against their countries. It's no wonder that people genuinely opposing antisemitism are hostile to him - but that supporters of Israel wishing there to be hatred of the followers of Judaism wish him to succeed.

But, of course, there is still no scrap of evidence that there is anything extreme or unreliable about either of the two JAZs. It's the London branch I think has been removed, and they're Socialists, not Orthodox Jews atall! PR^talk 16:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Evidence that JAZ are not "fringe" as claimed. (Sorry to put the evidence here, but despite the claims, I've never seen any discussion of the topic, and it obviously needs documenting somewhere). Here is the JAZs own calculation of the numbers of non-Zionist followers of Judaism there are in the world, from a (written) interview given by Hersh Lowenthal (of JAZ) to two Muslim women, Peren Birsaygili & M. Surmen. Hersh claims that the Haredim are non-Zionist, and there are 1/2 million within Israel and 1/2 million in America, England and Belgium. Hersh further says that a group of about 150,000 are openly opposed to Zionist ideology, including the communities of Satmar, Munkacz, Stolin, the Brisker schools of Talmudic study, and the Eidah Haredis (the original religious Jews of Jerusalem). Now, of course, those who hate the followers of Judaism and don't trust a word they say will insist that Hersh and the JAZ are lying - although those same haters are often extremely resistant to evidence (as we know so well). The WP article on Haredim appears to back the JAZ claim in quite some detail (eg "vast majority of Haredi men" don't serve in the IDF). We've just discovered (with CAMERA) that "party political" partisans are very, very keen to distort articles, we should hardly be lowering our guard again now! If you don't like any part of what I'm saying then of course I'll shut up again, but I came to the project, and come to your TalkPage, in a genuine spirit of enquiry.

Evidence that JAZ are not "extremist" as claimed. I'll leave that to another day (unless you really want it added here). PR^talk 09:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ryan - I'm sorry that your TalkPage is being abused in this fashion, because I have something else to ask you. Someone we know has damaged another TalkPage, making previous discussions (I want to read up on the part about captured vs. abducted) unavailable under red-links. It's possible to work out what he's done and fix it, but I'm reluctant to interfere with his edits. What should I do? PR^talk 17:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And, sorry, another thing. I've been repeatedly accused of all kinds of things, and every "disciplinary" on me has come with lying references to what went before - including repeated bringing up of a case where I was spectacularly proved totally and completely innocent. There's only one case ever in which I'm generally agreed to have done anything (seriously?) wrong and the discussion thereon had practically petered out before mentorship was thrust forwards as an option. (Thereafter, you were only involved because of really, really serious interference and harassment of all the volunteers who came forwards). Under these circumstances it is simply astounding that I should be threatened with a perma-block for communicating with you! PR^talk 19:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Dead horses

What is Lara going off about? I'm referring to her comments about ANI/mentorship/unblocking on The undertow's page - sorry for asking for clarification on what appears to be a dead topic, but looks like I missed something, and I'd like to know what Lara thinks is important enough to drag up in a completely unrelated thread on a third parties' talk page. No need to type anything if you have a link handy to the ANI or similar. Thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive142#Jack Merridew pretty much sums it up. I blocked Jack Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a few months back and he got in touch with me asking to appeal it. I started the thread on AN, and after quick, early support, I unblocked on the basis that there was clearly no longer support for the ban and it was my block to undo anyway. As soon as I unblocked, many people came and opposed the unblocking because I was obviously premature in making it. Eventually I reblocked and it's gone to the arbcom mailing list for a ban appeal. Hope that helps explain things, Ryan Postlethwaite 15:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • More than clear, thanks so much. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 20	12 May 2008	About the Signpost

Explicit sexual content draws fire	Sighted revisions introduced on the German Wikipedia
Foundation receives copyright claim from church	Board to update privacy policy, adopts data retention policy
Update on Citizendium	Board candidacies open through May 22
Two wiki events held in San Francisco Bay Area	New feature enables users to bypass IP blocks
WikiWorld: "Tony Clifton"	News and notes: Autoconfirmed level, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Changes at Featured lists
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That which must not be named :)

Three people have requested unprotection over at WP:RFPP. I'd like to hear your take on it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, I'll pop over and take a look. Thanks for the notification Fvas - hope everythings ok. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't complain. Haven't seen you 'round much lately :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Arb clerk

Are you still interested in being an arb clerk? Let me know if you are. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've opened a thread, Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard#General_discussion, and emailed the arbs. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Can i has IRC plz?

Having finally succumbed to the urge to find out what all the fuss is about, I decided to try out this IRC thing. My nick is James086 and you seem pretty clue-ey so could you please authorise/invite/whatever it's called my account? I'll bring beer and food :D Cheers, James086^{Talk | Email} 13:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad someone's already told you that beer and food is required for entry into the admins channel :-) I've put you on the access list to the channel, so what you need to do is identify then type /cs INVITE #wikipedia-en-admins and you should then be asked if you want to join. Any problems, let me know. It'll be good to see you there. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to genetics

Hi Ryan, people seem to be getting restless with this, although I'm in no particular hurry myself, but since I've now been asked twice to close an AfD where I've participated I thought I'd dump this in your lap pass this to a more experienced administrator. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tim for the note. I've closed it out as keep as the consensus was clear. It was certainly an AfD that was well commented on and hopefully everyone will respect the result. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your participation at my recent Request for adminship, and for the opportunity to discuss your opinion a bit on my talk page. I suspect that our real life experiences have caused us to develop very different problem analysis and solving skills, and so we’re unlikely to always see eye to eye on things - which is just fine by me. I give you credit for having a clear opinion. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Splitting WP:AN

I've reverted my move to split the Betacommand thread off WP:AN, but there are now serious issues with the size of the noticeboard - it's the largest I've ever seen it, and it's taking 20 seconds to load... and I've got broadband :D. I don't want to think how long it's going to take for some poor soul in an internet cafe on the far side of the world to get a handle on that page. What do you think is the best way to proceed? Happy‑melon 22:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I archived the kiddie-porn thread instead :D. Between that and a few other threads, I've shaved 50kB, which will have to do for now. Happy‑melon 22:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Am I a troll now

[19]

Are you implying/declaring me a troll? If it is possible, please avoid threads involving me. -- Cat ^chi? 21:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

How the hell do you come up with that ascertation? I removed an IP that was trolling you, that's all - he was attacking you so he got reverted, simple as that. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The team at work

File:Gatitos de moy.jpg

trabajando

hey up! this is for your paw work. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks squeak - I now like cats after seeing a couple of recent pics on the wiki! Raul has a nice collection as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

How I would love to give you one of my now 8 kittens. And with my brother coming to visit next month too. But the reality of rabies is otherwise...... Thanks, SqueakBox 22:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Awwww, I'd love one - would make an excellent addition to the student pad! Can't you get our brother to pack one in his case?! :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 22:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh and thanks for sorting the user page mistake...it was indeed intended for the talk page, and indeed I thought I had moved it myself but you obviously beat me to both the removal from SJ's p[age and the addition at his talk page. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought you'd realise quickly, but I'm a bugger when it comes to fixing things like that - just have to get in there first! Ryan Postlethwaite 22:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

I've added you to to the helper section here: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#Current_Clerks. You need to fix your time zone and also look at the active, inactive, and former clerks lists and pick a letter code to use. Welcome aboard! — Rlevse • Talk • 11:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You've been added to IRC channel #wikipedia-en-arbcom-clerks and kibble (Cbrown1023) should be adding you to our email list. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Malleus

Ryan, ok, I understand and agree that it is wrong to delete or protect a page if you don't know the policy. However, these policies aren't difficult to grasp. There is a certain class of people who one knows are easily smart enough to master these if they choose to, without much doubt. Malleus is one of those. Generally the skills to master complex literature and arrange large texts is more taxing than reading simple policy pages. Hence why article writers can transfer over to the mandarin world better than mandarins to the article building world. Wikipedia is a wreck because, requiring no ability, it has elevated into positions of leadership those who want to mandarin more than article-build. If your concern was that he might use tools in certain areas without comprehending policy, then that I would have more sympathy for it ... but that doesn't look likely. A well-trained peanut could master protection policy, and many have, so why couldn't Malleus? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

But admins do misuse the tools all the time. The deletion policy and blocking policy are not easy to master, we see day in, day out, administrators who do not understand them and make wrong decisions based on inexperience in those areas. Article writing skills are none transferable when it comes to admin tasks - they're not related in any way. Requests for adminship is about people who want the extra tools, and it's expected they know how to use them. Without any evidence on how they are going to be used, I must oppose Malleus because I think there's a real probability he will misuse them by accident because he does not understand situations well enough from an administrative perspective. I'll happily overlook mistakes from candidates who have plenty of experience, but I can overlook a candidate who hasn't even had the possibility of making a mistake because he hasn't participated in the areas that administrators have to deal in. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I'd ask you to think about it more. Writing FAs or just lots of high quality articles requires advanced intellectual skills that are transferable. Rote learning some policy pages in advance of an RfA does not require intellectual skill of anything like the same level. Heck, this is not even what one needs to do; just parrot the comments of admins above in the various relevant pages, and that would furnish your proof. This is not just my weird misguided philosophy btw, it happens to be the recruitment policy of most big companies in the City of London and (to a lesser extent) Manhattan. Good graduates trump non-graduate career pen-pushers of the same age 9 times out of 10. The admins who make mistakes ... well ... I can't comment. Most of the trouble I've witnessed comes from admins who get through on this philosophy, or who got through back in the day when it was easy. If the guy is a wanna be mandarin whose main card is this stuff, fair enough. But Malleus is a content-builder building a good encyclopedia who just wants to be trusted to use a few tools on the rare occasions he needs to use them. That, if you cast your mind back far enough, was the purpose of the position per WP:NBD; not to create a class of petty-minded mandarins unable or unwilling to help build a good encyclopedia, which is pretty much what we got now, or at least where we were heading for a while. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail on the head there (with respect to my thinking on administrators), without knowing so. Our best contributors edit articles, and they create our best content. This is what they're good at, and they don't need the admin tools to do that. Administrators have experience in a different area, they help remove the bad content, and bad contributors so the content writers can get on with their task without trouble. If we didn't have all the mandarins you talk about, and solely had users writing content, we wouldn't be anywhere near the standard we're at today. We'd have vandals runnning riot, and many inappropriate pages lingering around reducing the credability of the encyclopeda. Administrators need to have the experience in the areas that are admin related - they need to understand the blocking policy and all parts of the deletion policy/criteria before getting the tools, or they'll be more of a hinderence than if they didn't have the tools. You bring no big deal into the equation - well, of course adminship is no big deal, but it becomes one if administrators don't have the relevent experience they need to undertake the sysop functions effectively and productively. I don't have strict standards, I just want some admin evidence to look over to make sure they candidate has the right idea. Unfortunately, Malleus has no experience here - he doesn't have any evidence he'll use the tools effectively, and I therefore can't trust him just yet with the block and deletion buttons.

I'm not a huge fan of how some people are trying to turn RfA into a reward to the article writers for their hard work - this is one way that is going to lead to a lot of inexperienced people getting the tools and using them in inappropriate ways. There's a fine line, the best candidates have both article experience and content experience, but it's important that all candidates have at least some of both. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, I can't speak for others, but I am certainly not trying to make adminship a reward for content editors. You'd be well advised for wikipedia's sake not to think like that too, as this philosophy is almost always rooted in actual experience. Content editors make better admins than the other sort. Yes, we need the brute labour that the vandal-zappers offer to keep vandals away ... but that problem is more or less solved. Admins of the type this philosophy promotes do not have the combination of experience-driven perceptiveness, inclination and courage needed to keep bad users away from good users. This simply does not happen as you claim. Most areas of wiki are awash with tendentious POV-pushers who do nothing but drag articles down and waste the time of good users, and there are a whole range of stupid policies which your guys have helped create in the last year or so which make this even worse. Usually, a half-decent surivival instinct or a change of computer and ISP every once in a while keeps them in safety. By definition, a non-admin will not have experience as an admin, and every user who has demonstrated their personal commitment to improving the encyclopedia and their mental ability can be entrusted to comprehend relevant policies before they act on them. Rote learning parroting mandarins cannot be trusted to do anything but act as the slaves of whatever nonsense they think is approved of that current week or whoever is higher up their little prestige tree. Well, that's a bit strong, but I'm sure you understand my point. This perhaps needs more general debate than just this talk page, but there you go. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I respect your opinion but strongly disagree with your account of what an admin should be and especially the labelling of some extremely good admins, just not great article writers as "Rote learning parroting mandarins". Ryan Postlethwaite 22:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I didn't label "extremely good admins" that, but rather, the ones who fit that description. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello there Ryan! I spotted this thread by chance, but thought I'd make a small comment that I agree with Deacon here, and I can't resist sharing that. I've commented in my support for his RFA that Malleus been a challenging user, but I think for the right reasons. I think Deacon makes a great point that Malleus's contributions to projects and articles have been well informed and met certain advanced or even expert standards. Malleus is deeply committed, and from your comments at his RFA, for some reason, I sense there's a chance you might change your opinion. Do you think there is something Malleus could do as a gesture in his RFA that would make you or others be more inclined to support him? --Jza84 |  Talk  01:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey there Jza - good to hear from you. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position where I would change my view - article writing is of course important, it's the main reason why we're here. Adminship doesn't really have much to do with article writing in my opinion and I'll explain why......

Our major content contributors, like Malleus make efforts to take articles to the best they can be (FA and GA standard) - those contributions are much appreciate, but they have little to do with adminship. Admins have to be able to judge articles that come under marginal notability and other reasons set out at the speedy deletion criteria - The content editors often don't see this particular perspective, as they're often concentrating their efforts on the "better" articles. In the case of Malleus, I see no edits at all that shows he understands the speedy deletion criteria - a major aspect of adminship and something that all administrators should know like the back of their hand. He hasn't tagged pages for deletion, nor been involved in XfD debates (which admins are expected to close. Administrators are also able to block other users - they should have experience in areas related to blocking such as WP:AIV, WP:AN/3RR or in other areas where disruption is discussed. Again, Malleus has no experience here. I want to see evidence that Malleus understands these key areas of adminship, but unfortunately, there is none - he hasn't contributed in these places, so I can't be at all sure he knows when and where to use the sysop tools. I hope this helps explain why. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine then, you make a very sound counter-case! I'm aware that I might be a little biased in that Malleus and I have worked fairly closely together for some time now, but from that I know he's competent and conscientious sole. I think Malleus's answers don't do him justice, and he hasn't put his heart into this. Certainly he'd been involved with some localised PRODing (Crompton Primary School being one of his that comes to mind), but, I guess if you're settled on your stance, that's that. As they say, "if you don't ask, you don't get!" I've got my fingers crossed that the level of support for Malleus will have increased at least a little over the next few days.... I must also thank you for your recent support at my RFA; It is greatly appreciated and I won't let anyone down. Thanks again, :) --Jza84 |  Talk  02:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just stumbled across this, and I'd like to say that I fully understand Ryan's concerns. I'm not saying I share them, but I understand them. Around the time of my first RfA I was encouraged to hang out at AfD, which I did for a while, and I took part in quite a few more than the five discussions mentioned. It's true that I haven't nominated many articles for speedy deletion, probably no more than half a dozen, and from memory I think I've only made one report at AIV. I don't say any of this in an attempt to change anyone's mind about anything, just to show that I have no hard feelings about an honestly based oppose. In truth, I'd far prefer it if there was a subset of the admin buttons given to trusted editors (assuming of course that I could get over that hurdle), because I really couldn't see myself getting involved in much of the vandal fighting or blocking in any case. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Account

I use the other account ONLY for what I used it for in this case. If I need to link the two, I will. Opposing that RfA candidate is that important to me. Bellwether ^B_C 02:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Burma wheel war

That event already had a section about it above - I've removed your new section and moved your comment there. I used an unsigned template, but screwed up the spelling somewhere. Probably ought to replace it with your sig. Avruch ^T 02:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I was aware of the other section, but I think a new section was more appropriate given the latest action. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Well, in that case... Do you want me to move it back, or would you rather do it and leave your sig at the same time? Avruch ^T 02:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I've had a play around with it now and you're right, it's probably best as a new section under the original thread. I've added my signature back. Thanks for sorting it out and bring the sig issue to my attention. (you spealt my last name right (one of the first to!) but missed the space out ;-) ) Ryan Postlethwaite 02:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hah, I just had to laugh when I saw the name of this section. I immediately thought of someone coming here and changing it to "Myanmar wheel war". Aah, guess one has to find something humorous in the middle of a painstaking controversy. Best regards, Húsönd 02:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, we have to have a laugh sometimes. I wasn't so much concerned at your moves - I think it should have been moved back to Burma, but you reverted yourself anyway - it's just when other admins started getting involved, I didn't want it to escalate. Hope there's no hard feelings bud. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We have a live one!!

Ahhhh! — Monobi (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My recent RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace and talk space, so that is what I will do. I have made a list and I hope I will be able to get through it. I will go for another RfA in about three month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been about three months. I will not be checking back to this page so if you would like to comment or reply please use my talk page. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 06:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The Great Hunger

There is a consensus among the majority of editors that this article should be moved to the title Irish Potato Famine. An argument continues about the title change on this page by three particularly vocal editors who hold a minority viewpoint. However, given the overwhelming number of editors who agree that the article should be moved to Irish Potato Famine, the name it's best known under internationally, it seems like enough should be enough and an administrator might want to close the discussion and move the page. I see that you are one of the listed mentors. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Ryan Postlethwaite/archive17! I'd like to leave a note of appreciation for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully today (and to my surprise) with 83 supports, 4 opposes, and 2 neutral. What I have taken back from my RFA is that I've perhaps been too robust in debate and I will endevour to improve upon that aspect of my usership. I would like to thank you again and state here that I will not let any of my fellow Wikipedian's down. Thanks again! --Jza84 |  Talk  11:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks so much for your support in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hey Ryan Postlethwaite. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. I appreciate your trust. :) Best wishes, —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship Nonsense

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pedophile_topic_mentorship#No.2C_srsly

I'm wondering whether Petra's patently false and damaging accusation towards me deserves place on a "mentorship" page. The dangerous thing about this is that it can actually be believed by someone who does not look at the logs. J*Lambton ^T/_C 21:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"Smell the lawyer's office"

Are you sure that was a legal threat? When I read it, I interpreted it as some kind of reference to wikilawyering. I think it would have been better to shoot after asking questions. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I missed the discussion on Lambton's talk. Thanks. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Not when he was warned earlier this week for another comment that could be seen as a legal threat. He's agreed to retract it now, so I've unblocked. It was clearly meant to scare Petra by suggesting RL action - it wasn't anything to do with wikilawyering. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Bart Versieck

Hello Ryan. If you notice, I provided a link to the last discussion that I and another user (Moondyne) had with him. We told him that if he continued to cause such disruption, we would block him for three months without warning, and he agreed to this. And given how long this has been going (six or seven previous blocks), I don't particularly find it excessive. "Don't edit other people's comments" is not a hard instruction to follow, particularly when you clearly state many times that you understand this and promise not to do it again. Cheers, CP 01:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

But you two between you can't decide to block a user who makes minor infringments (and these latest ones were very minor) for three months. One edit was changing the header, which isn't even technically editing a comment. Would you please knock this back down to a maximum of a week? Ryan Postlethwaite 01:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Then how is this anything but punitive, the very thing that these blocks are meant to avoid? "Every time you do this, we'll block you for a week" - that's a punitive measure. I agree wholeheartedly with Moondyne's comment that his "behaviour just takes too much time and energy away from people who respect this project and it is my belief that your absence won't be a large loss". Bart has sent a very clear message that he does not care about respecting Wikipedia's policies, even after being asked numerous times and pledging constantly to modify his behavior. I just don't see any point to a one week block. Cheers, CP 01:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

But blocking for 3 months, for minor behavioural problems is silly given the fact Bart does some very productive stuff here. I honestly view a 3 month block as punitive. Would you prefer we take this to WP:AN to get wider administrative views? It might be a good idea to see what others have to think as I may be off the mark. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Try asking Moondyne before it comes to that. If he thinks that it should be lessened, I'll definitely agree as well. I say leave a note and give Moondyne 24 hours to respond before further action is taken, which will still be well within the week you are suggesting. Cheers, CP 01:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah good call - I'd certainly appreciate both your inputs before we proceed further, and as you say, it's still within the week I suggest. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 01:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Alas, I felt it was just a matter of time before Bart resumed his editing of other peoples comments again. Strategies in how to deal with this were discussed at a number of places including some private emails, his talk page (since archived) and ANI. I still support the 3 month block for the reasons CP has given above and if after this current block expires and the behaviour resumes, I would have to support a similar or longer term one again. Bart has 1) been given multiple short term blocks for the same thing; 2) promised to behave but continued on his merry way once his editing privilege was reinstated; 3) consumed a ridiculous amount of time from administrators and others asking him to abide by what is a really really simple policy. Ryan, I welcome your interest but requesting a shortened block is not constructive. I know the edits are not all that serious, but they are a flagrant breach of a policy which everyone else seems to be able to follow. I am not a policy wonk, but in this case I believe we have to draw a line in the sand. I believe that a 3 month break may just be enough to send the message through. But I'm happy for wider input if you wish. Moondyne 03:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd also add that if you read through the archives, there's a fairly clear consensus from a number of users for an extended block following Bart's warnings. Moondyne 11:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Red Rain in Kerala

Ey Up Ryan Postlethwaite,

Noting you comment on the Red Rain talk page a while back, you may be interested to know it's being reviewed again for FA status. At least I hope you still have some interest.

A chum with a penchant for panspermia had introduced me to the story in late 2005, so I read Louis and Kumar's three papers and the CESS paper, and went through a shedload of stuff on the internet. My conclusion was, and remains, that the cause was incomplete incineration.

On Wikipedia I thought I'd been quite careful and not overstepped the demarcation of original research and that I'd gently added factual information (e.g. the rather high concentration of heavy metals in the particles, or the unusually high concentration of Al). I lost interest after this paragraph I'd introduced was removed, though it remains in the schools version:

"More plausibly, the suggestion has been made that the red raindust was the result of incomplete incineration of chemical waste at the Eloor industrial zone, the particles being formed from microparticles of fly-ash or clay which coalesced around an aerosol of partly burnt organics as the incinerator plume cooled. The chemical composition of the raindust matches that of burnt organics plus clay; the fallout pattern matches with the prevailing winds; and various organic chemicals will form cellular structures which replicate in the presence of clay."

I'm not sure how best to sink finally the silly 'spores from space' idea. Are you still up for it? Or might it be better to leave it to die on its own? 87.113.211.135 (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Oops- was accidentally logged out so no sig. Davy p (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

PR block

I noticed you blocked PR for 72 hours for adding material from a site of questionable reliability. I have to say I think this was harsh, as far as I can see. I feel honor bound to defend PR, for I defended Jaakobou some time ago, against PR and Nishidani as it happens, for adding translated material from a somewhat similar source of the opposite POV. Jaakobou himself did some work trying to establish the reliability of the very site PR used. Nishidani considers the two cases quite parallel, and the discussion on the Kaplan matter seemed inconclusive in the various talk pages and archives. In any case, what is important, the material, the Kaplan interview, is obtainable from better sites, cf Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/PR, which oddly PR didn't use. Perhaps he forgot, which hardly seems blockable. I hope you might reconsider. Regards,John Z (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou contacted me regarding this thread and was unhappy about it. It seems you're referring a site called jewsagainstzionism.com? Jaakobou doesn't think he's ever called that a reliable source. If you're saying he has it would be better to present diffs because people's recollections aren't perfect, and ideally Jaakobou would rather not get dragged into this particular discussion at all. He's doing his best to avoid PR these days (which we probably all agree is a good idea). I have no opinon on PR's block; just asking that it stand or fall on its own merits. With respect, Durova^Charge! 06:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean he called it an RS, just that Jaakobou , showing commendable good faith, made some attempt to explore the issue.[20] bottom of page. (Roland is involved in an unrelated organization with a similar name to the one running that site, hence the confusion) I agree, PR and Jaakobou staying apart is a good idea. My point was that if someone as far from PR as Jaakobou could explore that site's & source's reliability seriously for even a minute, I think that helps show that blocking based on one edit using it is not usual. I should have said "explore" rather than work to establish, but I was tired. This was all just a side point, I don't want to mention or drag in Jaakobou any further; my apologies to him, my main desire was just to urge Ryan to reconsider PR.John Z (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that jewsagainstzionism is an obviously unreliable source; it's an polemical, anonymous, personal website. We don't even know the name of the person who runs it, just a P.O. Box number. This has been explained to PR numerous times, yet he continues to blithely insist there is nothing wrong with the site, and that no-one has ever given any reason why it might not be reliable. That is what is disruptive (or, rather, one of the many disruptive things PR regularly does). If you are able to find reliable sources confirming claims made by PR, that in no way absolves PR of his misbehavior in this matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Jayjg, and that's my exact reason behind the block. Just a few weeks ago, he was specifically told that the source was in no way reliable and should not be used, yet look what happened. This pattern of using troubling sources goes back a long way with PR and he's simply doing it to push his POV. It's gone on long enough now, and should it happen again, the block will be a lot longer. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, my position is that source-reliability is frequently not easy to determine, and can change on further research, and thus that a block made with no immediate warning (as far as I can tell) would only rarely be appropriate for this. Ryan, did you warn him a few weeks ago of blocking?; couldn't find anything like that (or the incident you speak of) or I would probably have kept my trap shut. I know much of PR's history and think that in his particular case this could be counterproductive. It's strange he used JAZ rather than the clearly better, whether "RS" or not, NKUSA one he should have known about. I'll see if I can edumucate PR as to the defects of JAZ and such sites. He might listen to me, he has in the past, though not always as much as I'd hoped. Hi, Jay. Thanks for the kind as always comment on my page that I never got around to replying to. (Hangs head in shame.) :(John Z (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My sig

OK, it was painful but I did it :-) How's it now? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 06:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey TT! Good to hear from you. The signature is much better and it looks cool as well :-) Thanks for acting how you have in this matter - it speaks a thousand words. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

And are they all "ban!"? :-) ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 12:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

See

See User_talk:Rlevse#ArbCom_Clerk_Trainee. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Time coord

See clerk noticeboard about time coordination. Respond there okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Um...

I don't want to get anyone in any trouble here, but I thought ArbCom directed that any pro-pedophilia stuff should be directed to ArbCom, privately, and only THEY would handle it. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I don't want to see you get in trouble :) SirFozzie (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Sir Fozzie, this looks really bad to me, leaving it to arbcom is exactly the only thing that needs to happen. I know you have previously expressed your dissastisfaction of the arbcom only ruling but this is a bad way to express that. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't one of those cases that needs arbcom intervention. They have said that pro-pedophilia things should go through them. but this isn't as simple as that. There is some POV pushing, but not as bad as previous users that have gone to arbcom. My proposal for a community ban is based on the fact that Jovin has basically done nothing but revert other users and in discussion, he's turned the project into a battle ground. I personally think he's only here to get into a fight - that's why I didn't involve arbcom. There are of course a couple of other users here that I'm concerned about solely for POV pushing, but I'll send them through arbcom privately. Hope that helps explain. Oh, and sorry SirFozzie, my internet was playing up whilst I was chatting to you so I've had to exit IRC. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Question at A/N

As the last commenter, there is a question at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Duration. -- SEWilco (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

IRC

Cheers, I was overwhelmed by uni work (in fact I should be studying for calculus at the moment) so I didn't have an opportunity to reply. I should be seen lurking and voicing my opinion in the channel now. Thanks again, James086^{Talk | Email} 09:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you spam

Hi there - thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed 69/10/3 yesterday. I will put the tools to good use and hopefully justify the confidence you had in me. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you were MIA

You were MIA at the appointed time to close the case and I'm on a tight sked tonight, so I had to close it. Check my contribs and read the closing section of WP:AC/C/P. Note that on the main case page, in a case like this with no bans, civility paroles, etc, you can just cut off the logs of blocks and bans sections. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

SSSIs

I've created a help page for you at User:Qst/SSSI help so you know how to work on SSSI lists when I'm on break. Have fun. :) Qst (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, could you do me a quick favour?

I've decided I wish to return to editing Wikipedia, and I checked recent changes and you were the first admin I found. Would you be so kind as to restore the following pages for me?

• User:HisSpaceResearch/Articles
• User:HisSpaceResearch/GA
• User:HisSpaceResearch/Images
• User:HisSpaceResearch/Misc
• User:HisSpaceResearch/Barnstars

Cheers.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course - it's certainly good to see you back. You were missed so don't go retiring again! Ryan Postlethwaite 10:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I was missed? I guessed nobody particularly noticed given nothing appeared on my user talk page. After my second RfA failed by a narrow margin, I began to edit less due to not having the time to do so (and not really because of the failure of the RfA), and it kinda just fizzled out. I suppose people may have noticed that I wasn't active at AfD like I used to regularly be.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Your message on my talk page prompted me to be a bit more thoughtful. I have outlined my concerns here on the article talk page. I did stop short of using WP:NPOV, WP:POV and generally loosing the head. That I have the book that was being used and abused was starting to bust my chops because they refused to provide quoted references. From my post you will see why I wanted them to back it up. Anyhow thanks for the advice, and any ideas on how I should proceed would be welcome. --Domer48 (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Edward Carson Mediation

Hi Ryan, I was wondering about your opinion as a mediator on this. [21] [22] [23] [24]

And the talk comment [25]

My viewpoint is that the category exists, and that both it and the article entry are notable and are cited.

Thank you for your views in advance! Keysstep (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I am going to assume you are either to busy or do not care, which I can understand. But I thought that it would be best to contact you as a mediator instead of getting into some lame revert war. Kind Regards, Keysstep (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

PR

If you feel I am stepping on your toes here: User talk:PalestineRemembered‎, please let meknow. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Block of Justinm1978

I am considering unblocking; while he should have requested page protection he was not incivil during the edit war and he was clearly acting on the basis of consensus and good faith otherwise against an IP that was editing tendentiously and deserves the block (and has not requested unblock). I think he's been blocked for long enough. How do you feel? Daniel Case (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 21	19 May 2008	About the Signpost

Pro-Israeli group's lobbying gets press, arbitration case	Board elections: Voting information, new candidates
Sister Projects Interview: Wikibooks	WikiWorld: "Hodag"
News and notes: Russian passes Swedish, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Good article milestone	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 22	26 May 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections: Candidate questions	Single User Login opt-in for all users
Community-related news sources grow	WikiWorld: "Tomcat and Bobcat"
News and notes: Wikimedia DE lawsuit, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured sounds	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Great Hunger

In light of this discussion, here, and based on the responses here and here, further discussion is pointless. Having attempted to address this issue here also I have no reason to believe the discussion will move on. Now as has been pointed out here, this article is under an Arbcom Ruling here, with conditions outlined here under Principles and here under Remedies. I’m now requesting that Mentor’s intervene and address this issue. “All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page.” As the article history shows, no discussion took place prior to the changes being implemented. No issues in relation to the Lead Section were raised prior to the discussion on the proposal to change the Article Name. The Article Lead Section only became an issue when one of the editors posts of a “Timeline” were removed under our guidelines of WP:LEAD. Since then I have placed a detailed outline of why the edits should be removed, including WP:OR, which is pacifically mentioned in the Principles section which is clearly indicated and outlined above. Since this is the first time that Mentor’s have had to intervene, should I direct this to them or to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement? The solution I would favour is for the Article Lead to be returned to last Stable Version, and issues raised can then be discussed as to content being added. The proposal currently being made on the talk page is aimed a addressing a problem created by the recent contentious additions, and not building upon a non-contentious and stable version. For that reason, I consider the proposal premature. To illustrate the dificulty just one example:

• Article says:The British Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel, immediately recognizing that the circumstances in Ireland meant that this crop failure could cause famine, ordered corn and meal to be sent from the United States and a Relief Commission set up.[3]

• Actual Source says: "The Great Famine begins. Prime Minister Robert Peel orders corn and meal to be sent from the United States."

• Editors response: “I have the book to which notes 3 to 8 refer in my hand at the moment: Ireland: History of a Nation (2002) by David Ross. Checking it I see that the appropriate text of the article is supported by reference to this book…” Colin4C (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, --Domer48 (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Under the circumstances I have no alternative but to direct your attention to the recent edits on the Article. I have detailed my concerns here and in the absence of any worthwhile response acted upon them. The recent changes here has resulted in the deliberate re-insertion of factually incorrect information. Because of our policy on Copy-Vio’s I have emailed you a copy of the page being quoted. --Domer48 (talk) 10:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ryan, please see my recent comments on User:Daniel's talk page [26]. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Improvements in referencing

Hello Ryan - I'm wondering how you planned to build on this great step forward, by which trusted members of the community now exclude certain sources from use in articles and are prepared to aggressively defend such decisions.

The thing I don't fully understand is that the discussion on this particular case seems to have been private, and whether we're to understand that no devout followers of major religions can be trusted as reliable, or whether it's currently only people such as the Satmar community and a site called "Jews Against Zionism" which may not be speaking for them in an official fashion. PR^talk 07:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered is using a false dichotomy. It is not a case of "either Satmar/Jews Against Zionism are reliable or all devout followers of major religions are unreliable." The evidence leads to something in between: that Jews Against Zionism and certain other websites are unreliable, while certain other websites are reliable. This has been explained to PalestineRemembered on his user talk page. I implore him not to continue down this dead end road. --GHcool (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a big problem with some of these discussions not being held in the open. Meanwhile, there are other sources crying out to be excluded, about which it's impossible to have a policy-driven discussion. PR^talk 21:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Jack_Merridew (talk · contribs)

FYI, a user you blocked - User:Jack Merridew - is requesting at User_talk:Jack_Merridew#Unblock_for_SUL_purposes to be unblocked so that he can merge his accounts on other Wikimedia projects. I'm letting you know since you are probably more familiar with him and can better determine whether there is any risk from such an unblock. --B (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind ... I've tested it and all he needs to do is hit one button - he can be blocked while he deals with entering all of his passwords for other wikis - he just needs to hit the "unify accounts" button while unblocked. I've taken care of it and will reblock him when he is done. --B (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for sorting that out. I saw it just before I had to pop into uni and I was going to unblock until he's unified it, but I see you've done that already. I'm sure we can trust him not to edit for this short period and he's active on a number of other Wikimedia projects. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks for this. Sean William @ 23:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Committee

Hi. I've recently become involved with MedCab, but think I could use my dispute resolution talents equally or better with MedCom. What do you think? Would I have to drop MedCab if I were suitable for MedCom? PS Good luck with your election. --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind message. I'll keep an eye on the caseload, but if one comes in and you see it first, you're welcome to "bagsy" it for me. NB I'm currently mediating at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-08 Copa del Rey for MedCab, if you're interested to cast an eye over it... --Dweller (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination

Would you accept me as a co-nominator for Cometstyles? Razorflame 01:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course :-) By all means add your co-nomination, I'm sure it would be much apprectiated by Comets! Ryan Postlethwaite 01:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have left a note on his talk page saying that I would like to co-nominate him, but the truth is, I've never written a co-nomination before, so I could use a little guidance. Thanks, Razorflame 01:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, just go ahead and add your co-nom. Take a look at WP:RFA and see what others have written and follow the lead. Just sum up your thoughts on Cometstyles. I'm sure you'll be fine - be bold!! Ryan Postlethwaite 01:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering that I myself am trying to become an administrator, not only here, but on the Simple English Wikipedia, I want to make sure that I get it right. Thanks for the vote of confidence, though. I will take a look at some other co-nominations, too. Thanks, Razorflame 02:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S.:Are you an admin? If you are, would you consider going to User:Razorflame/Admin Coaching and leaving your thoughts/opinions there for me? Thanks, Razorflame 02:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

How did I do? Razorflame 02:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The co-nom is very good, better than many so thanks :-) I'll certainly look over your editing and give you come considerations/comments to help you improve - After a quick look, everything looks good but I'll give you a proper review when I'm not as tired. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again for the vote of confidence, and also thank you for giving me an opportunity to do my first co-nomination! I will try to co-nominate some other users that I know well on here for adminship when the chance arises! Also, thanks for taking the time to give me any considerations and/or comments that you might have about me! Cheers, Razorflame 02:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Board

Wow. Impressive to see someone I acctually know and like going for one of the top jobs. You certainly have my vote Ryan, though I'm not sure if that is a good or a bad thing. Good luck and don't forget, the board will love you more if you try and assert your right to graze sheep upon the Wikimedia Commons ;) Narson (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks Narson. It's amazing to have such a thoughful comment from you - it's things like this that inspire me to contributing even more. I'll certainly look forward to working with you in the future, whether I get voted onto the board or not. Thanks again - it means a lot. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can be thoughtful sometimes ;) Your name is one I have, obviously, seen over time doing the little things (and odd big thing). Just thought you should know the toiling away doesn't go unnoticed or unrewarded. Narson (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Without wanting to appear like I'm just jumping on a bandwaggon here, I'm going to have to agree. I've had a few dealings with you in the past, and they've been very pleasant indeed, which is (unfortunatly) a refreshing change from some individuals here. I've also observed some of the work you do for the community here, and I must stress some - the amount of work you do, from my perspective, is immense, as well as immensely valuable. You have my full support for this election, and I wish you the best of luck :) _TalkIslander 22:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks Islander :-) I still remember supporting your RfA, and just before it, helping you out with a few things. I hope you're enjoying being an admin - I haven't heard any bad reports so you can't be doing such a bad job ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 12:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Bad news. My trackpad was mis-behaving and I accidently voted for you. Darn. :) Pedro :  Chat  15:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Great Hunger

Under the ArbCom ruling a number of principles were agreed upon by the ArbCom. While editwarring and reverting were not directly addressed, Verifiable information and original research were. While you have focused on the issues which were not directly addressed, you have ignored the ones which were. That the ones you ignore are directly responsible for the ones not listed appears to me at least strange. Ignoring the causes and focusing on the symptoms, and not alone that but targeting one of the editors who is trying to improve the article. While I get warnings on my talk page here and here on reverting, I appear to be the only one. Having engaged on the talk page here, here, here, here, here, here and now here, I get warnings. Now can you explain to me why this is? Why are you reluctant to enforce the rulings of the ArbCom?

Now here is some examples from the revert you failed to address or even mention.

Examples:

Actual Source verbatim: Famine begins. Prime Minister Robert Peel orders corn and meal to be sent from the United States. A Relief Commission is set up under Edward Lucas. David Ross, Ireland: History of a Nation, Geddes & Grosset (Scotland 2006) ISBN 13: 978 1 84205 164 1 , p. 311

Actual text added to article: The British Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel, immediately recognizing that the circumstances in Ireland meant that this crop failure could cause famine, ordered Indian corn and meal to be sent from the United States and a Relief Commission set up.

Actual Source verbatim: Whig government falls. Lord Russell's Tory government halts food and relief works (re-instates them by end of year). The Central Relief Committee of the Society of Friends is set up to alleviate suffering.David Ross, Ireland: History of a Nation, Geddes & Grosset (Scotland 2006) ISBN 13: 978 1 84205 164 1 , p. 311

Actual text added to article: The new Whig administration under Lord Russell, influenced by their laissez-faire belief that the market would provide the food needed, then halted government food and relief works leaving many hundreds of thousands of people without any work, money or food. David Ross, Ireland: History of a Nation, Geddes & Grosset (Scotland 2006) ISBN 13: 978 1 84205 164 1 , p. 311

Actual text added to article: Private initiatives such as The Central Relief Committee of the Society of Friends (Quakers) attempted to fill the gap caused by the end of government relief and eventually the government reinstated the relief works, although bureaucracy made food supplies slow to be released. David Ross, Ireland: History of a Nation, Geddes & Grosset (Scotland 2006) ISBN 13: 978 1 84205 164 1 , p. 311

Now are you going to answer my queries and address this, or sit on your hands and wait for the opportunity to issue me another warning? Please address the cause of the problem, the people adding un-sourced material and/or original research and edit warring to keep it in the article, instead of threatening to article ban the person trying to keep it out of the article. I don't see a single warning for edit warring on anyone else's talk page, despite them edit warring to retain disputed information. I should not need to go for RFC or Third Opinion, we've already been all the way up to ArbCom and various principles were established, and if they were actually upheld things would go a lot smoother for everyone. So where from here? Domer48 (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No Discussion

“All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page,” per ArbCom ruling. This revert by a single purpose account Editor was accompanied with the Edit Summary “removed after discussion.” This is the outline of the “discussion” which resulted in the above reversion. The editor proposes removing it here. I respond here, suggesting I reference it. I almost immediately put forward a reference, and said I would provide more. My answer noting a policy based reason was based on a previous proposal here, which gave no rational. The first editor to respond had no real objection, did not even ask why remove it. I asked why they wanted to remove it, and they said they wanted to make it flow better and beside they never heard of it. The editor who previously had no objection supported its retention bending sources. The editor who proposed it be removed, removes from the article and only then responds on the article talk page, rejecting the source and any other source provided, under a completely different rational. Is this what constitutes discussion? When I see the amount of discussing I was doing and I still got a warning? Where is the consensus for its removal, and were is the discussion for that matter. --Domer48 (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, [27], [28], [29], [30] , [31], [32], or am I missing something?--Domer48 (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Welcoming_committee#Hey

You said you wanted to make a welcoming bot awhile ago and you said it had to be userbased.Well, I can d that if you wish. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up}Userboxes 16:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ziggy Stardust

If you unblock him would you consider letting me mentor the user? I could put him to work doing research for and copyediting on my Supreme Court articles. JeanLatore (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You're not ready to mentor anyone until you demonstrate a more solid understanding of Wikipedia policies/guidelines yourself. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 23	2 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections open	WikiWorld: "Facial Hair"
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Query

Hi, Ryan - maybe I'm missing some background, but why did you remove this? Kelly ^hi! 20:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Help me, French presidential election, 2007

Hello, You blocked me following Guillom's request because I had in French presidential election, 2007 an external link related to Vote Results for this election by commune. Guillom deleted my external link because it is not a reference or official. Now when I go to the same page, there are some weird external links such as:

1. Polarisation and crisis - the French elections and the radical Left (blog !!)
2. AngusReid (French election polls in English)(??)
3. Funny elections Database at RangeVoting.org (??)
4. (English) Sarkozy speech after being elected (youtube !!)

These sites are nonely a reference or official such as the external link I proposed. So I removed them but the user Rama has reverted my modification. Well, I feel very disappointed because I don't want a revert war. I feel that there is a double standard policy. When I propose an external link, it is not a reference, but when others propose blogs or personnal sites, it is ok. I read carefully Wikipedia policy regarding external links, if a rule applies, it applies for everybody ? Thank you to reply me --Blanchisserie 11:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, your block of this user appears to have been inappropriate. The user was not warned, it seems, nor was the user informed as to how to appeal a block. As to the block reason itself, the link the user posted doesn't clearly meet WP:LINKSPAM. Maybe you know something I don't. Definitely, the user should have been warned, because of the edit warring. I can also understand the user's frustration; it should be explained that guidelines are just that: not binding rules, and what decides the application in each case is editorial consensus; if consensus cannot be found, edit warring, as the user did, is not acceptable; rather, dispute resolution should be followed to involve more editors in the decision. Perhaps an apology would be in order? Thanks. --Abd (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI, this user has continued, apparently, to edit war (though probably not after having seen the above.) I have warned the user, I hope that proves to be useful. --Abd (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

Here is the story:

1) I edit French presidential election, 2007, with an External Link, and the user Guillom deleted it, I try to communicate with him (see [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guillom#French_Presidential_Election

]]), no response, I redid my edit, he deleted one more time (see [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guillom#French_Presidential_Election ]]), so he is responsible to the edit warring as no response from him when trying to communicate !

2) I was blocked by this admin. I sent an email to him, no response.

3) When I was blocked, Guillom sent me a message (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blanchisserie, if you cannnot read French, to sum up, he wrote: "fuck off from Wikipedia, you do not understand anything"

4) As far as I understood, my External link was not a reference. But when I delete the other ones that are not a reference too, now the user Abd deletes my edits

5) The admin still does not reply. Abd: instead of warning me with spam or edit warring (whereas edit warring came from Guillom, I didn't start, still the "double standard policy"...), why do not explain me why you deleted my edit ? I deleted External Links that does not match Wikipedia policy as they are not a reference.

--Blanchisserie 15:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not delete any edits of Blanchisserie. This editor appears massively confused. He is making edits to the article that are being reverted by many different editors; apparently he thinks that I made the edit actually made by User:Med. [33] Look, if you want help, Blanchisserie, you will find help if you start listening and understanding basic policies, starting with assume good faith. Ask for help, listen to the response, and you may learn to participate in the editorial process in a constructive way. As to the alleged incivility above, what user Guillom has done or not done is not relevant to the behavior of Blanchisserie. That claim, however, should be investigated. But, Blanchisserie, you are being warned, and no matter how bad Guillom is -- or isn't -- has little or no relevance to your own behavior. If you are patient, and faced with uncivil editors, you will see them disappear. But it can take a lot of time. --Abd (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

These are the two edits by Guillom to Blanchisserie Talk: [34], [35]. I don't see any incivility there resembling Blanchisserie's alleged summation. My French is weak, so I can't guarantee that there wasn't subtle insult, but ... Blanchisserie, if you don't prove that the editor actually personally attacked you or was clearly uncivil, your claim that he did itself constitutes incivility. There is a disagreement here about the suitability of a link. I have no opinion as to the correctness of either side. But I do have an opinion about edit warring and incivility.--Abd (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not you Abd who deleted my edit, it is Mel. Sorry. I am going to redo my edit. Could you please you, or an admin, block Mel (and not me!) if a edit warring appear ?--Blanchisserie 15:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Abd, sorry but your French may not be very good. When you ask somebody why he deleted your edit and he replies "You external link has nothing to do here. Fuck off if you are not happy" with no explanation on why my external link has nothing to do. Maybe it is not insult but incivility.--Blanchisserie 15:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I see now the problem. I've explained on Bl.'s Talk. He's a COI editor, It's his web page he is putting in (He wrote "mon" with it.) Now, as to "fuck off," what exactly were the French words that said that? They did not teach me "fuck off" in high school. By the way, sign your post, not with your name, time, and date, but with ~~~~ (four tildes), which will automatically insert your user name, link to your Talk page, and the time and date. --Abd (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Abd - the user was blocked on the french Wikipedia for the same thing, before moving to the english Wikipedia to insert the links. That's why I blocked him for linkspamming. He had had a warning on the French Wikipedia, got blocked, yet did exactly the same thing here. That's why I blocked him for 24 hours. Obviously, if this had been isolated to this project, I'd have warned first, then blocked - but it wasn't and he knew he was in the wrong. I'm not sure if you've ever been blocked Abd, but when you get blocked and try to edit, you get a screen explaining why you were blocked (the block log reason), information about what a block it and the way you can appeal it, so it's not necessary for admins to actually explain how to appeal the block. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Ryan, I eventually came up with about all of it. I'd forgotten about the block message. You were, and are, absolutely correct, yet I don't regret my intervention here. One thing I'm trying to do is to impress upon this user and anyone else watching that, with patience, Wikipedia process works. It can be frustratingly difficult to learn how it works, and some of the errors that this user is making -- if he's not just pretending, and we should assume that he's not pretending -- are quite easy to make. The prior history with the french project was one of the latest things I found. The user also posted to my talk page, giving the exact French behind his charge that he'd been told to "fuck off!" It was "Point. Va voir ailleurs." Which is dismissive, but not nearly as uncivil as "fuck off!" is in English. I now, clumsily and without certainty, translate it as "No. Go look elsewhere!" (i.e, for promotion for your site.) A bit rude, but not grossly uncivil. --Abd (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, if you can read French you would have understood something. Indeed I was blocked because I made mistakes I was not aware in the French Wiki. After explanations into the French Administrator Bulletin, I understood my mistakes. So when I have edited the english Wikipedia, I did so according to French administrators' advise (i.e. External Links must be well described and point straight to the info, do not write description with no customization for each page, etc.) Thanks for me, I learn from my mistake. But you did not care, Guillom told you "this guy made trouble with French Wiki" and you took it for granted whereas I was editing English Wiki according to the French admin advises. So you block me with no explanation and when I appeal from this decision (I email you to explain what I am curretly writing), you did not reply to me. So do not judge if you do not take the time to analyse fairly the story. "No. Go look elsewhere!" Blanchisserie 18:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Blanchisserie, consider it from the other side. Ryan's action was reasonable, administrators aren't expected to be perfect and to investigate everything in detail. Look, the *big* problem here was that you edit warred, even though you were not blocked for that, ostensibly -- but it was mentioned (3RR). And I'm pretty sure the French admins did not advise you to do that! I've come to the conclusion, myself, that your link is a good one, but since it was previously removed, I'm not going to edit war it back in! Rather, I've asked for reasons to exclude it. I don't see any, but that's why we ask. Maybe someone has one, maybe there is something on or about the site I haven't noticed, etc. If no decent reasons appear, then I'll put it in myself. And if it is reverted without good cause, then I get to explore WP:DR a bit, always something to learn. --Abd (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed reference to a killed UN worker?

Dear Ryan - see what you think of this edit. A number of foreigners were killed in a short period (at least one declared murdered and another "unlawfully killed"), I've linked them together. Another of these people (Iain Hook, UN head of reconstruction, and I think he was inside the UN compound) doesn't yet have an article about him (his story is quite well known and a further 13 UN workers were killed around then, so I'm not sure why there's as yet no article). Can that really be any reason for removing a reference to him? PR^talk 15:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:See also: "The optional See also section provides a bulleted list of blue internal links to related Wikipedia articles" - if it doesn't have a related article, it does not belong in "see also". "See also" is not a place for you to create an original research synthesis of unrelated events, in order to push the thesis that the events are all "part of a series" of planned actions. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I trust you don't make a habit of wiki-stalking other editors, particularly not to semi-personal discussions like this one. Your understanding of "unrelated events" is quite remarkable, it is pretty rare for individuals travelling abroad to be killed (accidentally or deliberately) by state forces, and this looks like an extraordinary cluster that few would think were a coincidence. A cluster of such deaths in Darfur or Tibet would most certainly invite some cross-referencing.

Meanwhile, I trust you will not approve of the further edit that's now been made, which looks a lot like WP:POINT. However, I'm sure we could cooperate on introducing the fact that Israeli MKs have expressed very serious objection to these foreign observers, I believe that these particular volunteers are now banned, and other observers are (were?) forced to sign indemnities before going into Gaza. PR^talk 19:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You are complaining about an edit of mine to a 3rd party, without having the courtesy to even let me know about it, let alone discussing it with me on my Talk page or on the article's talk page, and you have the audacity to complain about me responding to this? I've explained why your edit was improper, based on Wikipedia policy. Further discussions about this edit, other edits, or your original research, needs to take place on the article's Talk page. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a long history of serious interference with my personal dealings with other experienced editors, up to and including harassment of a mentor in public and private. You're under threat of a topic ban for your conduct on another article in the same topic, and now you come trolling to this TalkPage to tell me where discussions can take place. PR^talk 07:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm under no threat of ban (unlike you, seeing as you already been sanctioned under that Arbitration ruling) , and responding to your compaliant about my edits is not trolling. Please take any further discussions to the article's Talk page. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this because of this. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 18:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Notifying others of mediation request

You have left me a notification that I should notify all people involved in mediation when applying for mediation. 1) I did not know and still do not know whether the application has been accepted. 2) I thought this was done when the application was accepted. Why do editors need to have this information ahead of time? 3) The last mediation I was involved in, the mediation committee notified editors. Student7 (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

We only accept cases after all editors have agreed to the mediation, so they must be notified in order to be aware of the mediation so they can decide whether or not to agree or disagree to it. It's always been the case that the onus is on the user filing the case to notify the users. I've notified all the parties this time, but please remember to do this for yourself if you should file another RfM in the future. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Email

You haz email! :) Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 00:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy Notification regarding my recall criteria

Hiya. Just a courtesy note to say I've named you as one of the editors that I would accept a request for recall from. There's nothing onerous about it, and you don't have to do anything. It's simply to let you know that as I have added myself to CAT:AOR I needed some unfussed criteria for recall, and I believe your judgement fits that criteria neatly. Thanks! Pedro :  Chat  10:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Great Irish Famine

Please see the recent history and discussion, especially Tag Lead Section. Domer is acting without consensus. While you're there, you may want to take a look at the move proposal, where there is a clear consensus to move the article. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 24	9 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections continue	WikiWorld: "Triskaidekaphobia"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Main page day	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)