User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite/archive18

meta: board election - question regarding Wikiversity

Hello Ryan, since there are only a few days left until end of election I personally hope I still can see your response about this question regarding Wikiversity. Thank you very much in advance, ----Erkan Yilmaz (talk ?, wiki blog) 15:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yikes

The Big Schlong Barnnstar - You need to change the title of that award lol, I had no idea what "Schlong" ment until just then. Regards. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hehe - it is collapsed for a reason ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 23:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Curosity killed the cat I believe they do say. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

My little prophecy

Well, it wasn't hard to predict, but still. This turned out to be predicting this. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually read what you wrote ealier today and hoped it wouldn't actually come to it. I think closure was the right thing to do because the community can't override an ArbCom remedy - hopefully this will lead to discussion on what the committee can and can't actually do. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh but we can. What are they going to do, ban us all? Viridae^Talk 22:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, hopefully we can sort this out without the whole community feeling the need to revolt - that wouldn't be good for anyone. I suggest requesting clarification first, asking the committee what would happen if the community decided they didn't want this - I suspect they would adhere to the communities views. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Unblock of giovanni33

Ryan, you didn't comment or log your unblock here. I am concerned that you are unaware that other administrators have reviewed and declined to unblock Giovanni33 despite his arbcom case. Since his arbcom case involves sockpuppetry, I am concerned his unblock will allow his puppets to continue to edit war. --DHeyward (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realise there was an AE thread about this, but I will comment. Giovanni is in a case where he is about to get banned should the voting continue as it has been and it's only fair he has access to edit the case on wiki - it's in line with other users that have been blocked whilst there is an arbitration case about them. Should he keep to the unblock conditions, there shouldn't be any problems, but if there is, we can quickly reblock. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Since G33 is editing under your reprieve, you may want to review his contributions to his arbcom case. Here's the thread and threat. There's another discussion here. They appear to be thinly veiled threats to take legal action against editors and ArbCom if he is banned. I've made a motion to block him for threats on ArbCom page so I don't think you need to do anything but I figured you'd want to be aware of it. --DHeyward (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion

Ryan you may wish to review my post here --Domer48 (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Pete Postlethwaite

Are you related to actor Pete Postlethwaite or Father Basil Postlethwaite?? 70.19.24.191 (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. I must get asked if I'm related to Pete at least once a week - I wish I was related to such a good actor! I don't think I'm related to anyone of any remote significance in the world :-( Ryan Postlethwaite 22:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:My Question

Would you care to comment? This "standard" bugs me, as I now feel that if I ever want to eb an admin, I need like 20 featured articles to mee twith some people's standards. May the cards be stacked in your favor! Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

With regards to adminship, the reason why people like to see article contributions is a couple of reasons; firstly, they want to know you're here for the right reasons - users want admins to be here to improve the encyclopedia and without article contributions, you have to question their real reason for being here (power?). Secodally, article edits show an understands of our content policies/guidelines. Often admins have to mediate disputes/make calls with regards to content - without article edits, it's hard to show experience that you understand the content requirements. It's also important to have experience in admin related areas such as participation in xfD debates, speedy tagging and reports to AIV so you show you understand exactly where and when to use the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have replied at WT:RFA. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a final count of 42 supporting, 2 opposing and 2 neutral. I would like to thank Keeper76 especially for the great nomination. I look forward to assist the project and its community as an administrator. Thanks again, Cenarium ^Talk 01:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

[1]

I have a question about this :). This bot (BetacommandBot) was blocked. What did he do ? I'm asking cause I just reverted one of his edits :). Greets, Sir Lothar (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It was more a case of problems with his main account. He's been heavily active in bot edits, but he was using his main account to make this type of edit, and there were problems - hence why he is now banned from using bots. He was also uncivil when discussing problems with other editors. Another serious problem was abusive sockpuppetry - he attempted to start afresh with a new account, but he used both his accounts on WP:BAG to edit war and this lead to a block, and a large discussion about a community ban. In the end, he was placed on community civility parole and banned from using bots (hence why his bot was blocked). I hope this helps, Ryan Postlethwaite 01:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I see, I'm asking because I've just found his edit like: [2] and in case don't know if his reliable enough to ask why he did this ? The owner of bot is blocked also ? And is this edit also part of some edit wars and POV ?Sir Lothar (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine

I see you are one of the three mentors assigned in this case to monitoring Great Irish Famine. A related arbitration enforcement thread has been opened at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#The Great Hunger. I am cross-posting this to the talk pages of the other two mentors. GRBerry 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, please act on this, you know more than the rest of us. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Temazepam

Another dispute where you could help! Good luck with the election BTW. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33

You unblocked G33 under the condition he only edit pages related to the arbcom case about him. He has now begun editing numerous other pages as per [[3]]. Jtrainor (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup - his original block would be over now so he's free to continue editing. He Checked with me privately to make sure. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Andy Z

I saw that the page was blanked after the previous editor. At first I thought something was wrong but then I just reverted it and it was back to normal. I should have used a simple "undo", I apologize. ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

AN archiving

You seemed to have missed the point when I archived the Dorftrottel discussion, so I'll clarify here. You shouldn't have posted all of that 'evidence' to AN, but seeing that you did does not mean that AN suddenly becomes an RfC. There are appropriate forums for discussing user conduct, but AN isn't really one of them. It looks (from the sheer size of your research) that you have long-standing issues with Dorftrottel. If that's the case, then AN really isn't the place for your dispute. When a conversation stops being productive and starts being merely vindictive, it's time to stop, archive, and move on before things get worse. If you want to propose sanctions of some sort, use RfC/U or another appropriate forum. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Election

In an attempt to cancel out Dorftrottel's spitefulness, I've decided to vote for you (assuming I did it correctly) ——Ryan | t • c 11:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be difficult. by my calculation, failing to vote for someone gives them a score of 100. Voting for them gives them a score of 1. I should have read the voting details more closely. The people I didn't vote for got 100, but I don't mind too much about that as I didn't want them to be elected anyway. What I should have done with the others was put them further down the scale, instead of all together at the top. Silly Schulze method. Carcharoth (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Portal:England

I've started converting this to the random portal component, as it was just becoming tedious to fix the redlinks, and we don't want it to lost its FPO status. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Also, if you create any selected biographes/articles, please make sure they're of B-class status or higher — that is what I normally do with the portals I bring to FPO. Best, Qst (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Yeah, I'm happy to give it a stab. What did you think of my MedCab efforts at Copa del Rey? I think I was perhaps a little too proscriptive in stopping the parties discussing among themselves, but it worked in terms of keeping the heat out of it. --Dweller (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm... Give me a green light and I'll go. --Dweller (talk) 11:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I refer the honourable gentleman to the questions I asked some time ago ;-) --Dweller (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Looks tricky! Will you keep an eye on what I'm up to and tip me off if you think I'm making a balls up. --Dweller (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Splendid! I plan to kick off later today. --Dweller (talk) 09:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be daft not to take advice! Generally, my main ambition is to get the parties talking through me, to avoid them getting heated. I find that even the most reasonable people can become unreasonable when they're angry. --Dweller (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dorftrottel

You commented in this ANI thread, so I figured you may be interested in the RfCU I've filed about myself. If you can find the time, your input would be highly appreciated. (Also, could you please notify Tariqabjotu for me? He also did comment at AN, but his talk is sprotected and my sockpuppet isn't yet autoconfirmed. Also also: I've copied over the Twinkle-free version of my monobook files and will reinstate Twinkle only after the two weeks have passed.) Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Good luck (And other things)

First of all, good luck now they are tallying the votes. I hope you studied the Zanu-PF election manual and snuck in a few of your own people to oversee the counting. ;) Secondly, and sorry to bother you with this, but me and PfainUK are trying to deal with a chap, I've spoken to Roger about it early on in the proceedings and he agreed we were being ok, but I'd like a second check now it has progressed and maybe a suggestion on how to proceed? MEGV is pretty tendatious and has been lobbing around accusations of incivility (I was blunt with him once and well, I can see one or two comments that are out of line from other editors, but it seems more like frustration to me). Either way, if you could check out Talk:Gibraltar and see? I warn you, huge blocks of text. It is a big load of tl;dr and alot of WP:IDHT. If you can't be arsed, don't have the time or just plain don't want to, that is also great :) Narson (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

ANI.

Hello, Ryan Postlethwaite. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yours, 93.107.74.10 (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think 93 should have just talked to you directly instead of taking this to ANI, but they do seem to have a point. What abuse is the projection trying to stop? I don't see any IP disruption. -- Ned Scott 07:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Gioano II as arb?

He's got a block log a mile long for all sorts of things. Are you serious? And Raul is too heavy handed and overworked. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, during the 2007 elections, he was one of the unlucky losers and gained over 50% community support, but didn't get elected. He was named as Jimbo at the time of the December appointments as a possible replacement. That's all my list was, the people Jimbo had named. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Amazing. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Conflag

Ryan, I see you are in a conflagration with Domer over your accusations of SP. Well, the best thing to do is withdraw the charge, apologise unreservedly, and move on. The vote on the Talk:The Great Hunger page seems to be going the direction I wished for, so I'm not now interested in getting unto the page. The irony of the situation is that Domer would have a different view on the naming issue than me, but I have no problems with others having differing views. That's what makes the world go around;) Also I thought IPs are allowed to edit, and have equal standing with other editors. 93.107.78.102 (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Contras

Per my userpage notice, my time on-wiki may be limited between now and Monday (including my usual weekend hiatus), so if you could keep an eye on the MedCom page, to keep things cool, that'd be great. --Dweller (talk) 11:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

God you slacker! Yeah I'll keep an eye on things for you - hopefully things shouldn't get too much out of hand! Ryan Postlethwaite 12:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Giano firestorm

Hey, I generally have a great deal of respect for both you and Rockpocket, so I was a tad disappointed to see that you were willing to so rapidly overturn his block of Giano. It appears (from Rockpocket's response to my query on his talk page) that there were issues related to genuine 'outing' in play—not merely of an individual's alternate account name, but actual links to real-life identities.

I hope that the two of you can talk things over – on or off wiki – to reach some sort of common ground. I have to admit that I was stunned by the brutality and cruelty of the pile-on on AN/I in response to Rockpocket's block, and while I know that your intention was to do the right thing, the whole thing had a very lynch-mob flavour. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I specifically asked for calm with regards to Rockpuppet - he was trying to do the right thing, but I think it was just a lapse of judgement. I too have a lot of respect for him, and continue to do so. I'll certainly send him an email to settle the whole affair. The problem is, Kittybrewster had some editing problems with his main account - if you vanish and expect no-one to ever mention your old account then you don't come back, you stay off WP forever or if you do come back, you edit in places which would mean you never get found out. It seems apparent that the connection was obvious, so all giano was doing was highlighting that he knew the new account was Kittybrewster. There was no RL outing - all that was mentioned was a previous username. I respect that this could have been seen as a lynch mobbing - that was certainly not my intention here and I'll be offering Rockpuppet a full apology if he believes I played a part in that. It was sad to see some of those comments on AN/I. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think of you, personally, as a lynch-mobber. I was a bit concerned at how quickly the torches and pitchforks came out on AN/I, though, and I'm constitutionally inclined to resist any AN/I request that starts out with 'blatant abuse' accusations and demands swift desysopping. The guy makes one questionable block, and people are looking for an emergency desysopping. Yikes. Have people gone insane? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to inform you that I've removed your archiving of this for 2 reasons:

1. Rockpocket made an explanation - if it's being archived, it should include that, and any subsequent replies to that explanation
2. There is still a matter of other problematic conduct of Giano II tha thas been overloooked, and continues to be. It seems Giano II has been given special privilleges by someone to edit-war on other talk pages in a manner that can be considered as harassment.

Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to note here that I don't have an issue, Ryan, with your unblock. Given the weight of protest it is difficult to criticize you for it, though I would have liked to explain why first. I was kind of overwhelmed by the flood of responses and didn't manage to respond as I would have liked. Nevertheless, my justification doesn't appear to have changed many minds, so I doubt it would have mattered even if I could have responded quicker. I am always happy to reconsider and discuss any admin action and thank all three of you for your considered comments. Even if they were not in agreement with me, they at least addressed the issue with good faith and reason.

What did, and continues to shock me was the viciousness with which some editors responded to what was a genuine attempt at helping an editor avoid harassment. Not only could they not have been aware of all the details (and I think only Foz and perhaps Alison are), but some simply assumed this was part of a feud with Giano, which couldn't be further from the truth. The fact that they then used that nonsense to justify their calls for de-sysopping is beyond belief, quite frankly. Even more remarkable was that a few are experienced admins themselves.

To be perfectly honest, this has shaken me up a bit. We all make mistakes and this may well have been a rather large one on my part. I take that very seriously and will consider it very carefully before deciding what to do about it. But I always try and assume good faith of others, and the speed at which a good number of editors went for blood both saddens and worries me. Rockpocket 07:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're the only one who got the nasty shock - but it's been noted for the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding legal threats

In the BG7 case, is it handled differently due to the high lack of credibility to any such threat, or the perception that the editor likely doesn't understand what he is saying? I think that from most editors , a claim like "Well, If I wanted to, I could also take legal proceedings over my notice" would be taken more seriously. I'm not suggesting a double standard for children, just trying to get a stronger grasp on policy. Thanks for any info. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, although he said that comment, in the next he specifically said he wasn't going to take legal actions, so as far as I'm concerned, he hasn't repeated any threats. I think it's a good idea that he takes a break - he's obviously upset and that's never good for editing. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Just about 20 minutes ago he had made a seperate legal threat on his user talk, which I gave him a final warning for. I'd link it but I'm not sure what he's done with his talk. I thought in general these things were taken more seriously, although I guess I don't see all too many legal threats. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats are taken very seriously - I've blocked a number of editors for making them in the past, even when they're quite clearly bogus. But in this case, he specifically said he wasn't going to take legal action which means it isn't really blockable. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's what I thought. On his talk he said that he was "considering taking legal action" against Wikimedia for some reason or another, but I guess a blanking of that can be considered a "withdrawal". Thanks for the info. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Heads up...

I have a good idea who our mobile phone friend is. I'm sure it's not Domer48, but to the best of my knowledge it's someone who has a history of.. circumventing restrictions and has caused one mobile phone IP range to be rangeblocked already. I'll try to get this new set patched, I don't think we should be allowing mobile phones to edit wikipedia.. too much like open proxies for my peace of mind. But hit me up privately if you need more, but I think you can tell Domer that it's not him :) SirFozzie (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Harassment

I just wanted to note that CarolSpears (talk · contribs), who has a history of being blocked for harassment, attcks, disruptive edits, etc., by multiple admins (including yourself), has now begun pestering me over an event that never ocurred and wo'nt stop. I have gradually strengthened requests to leave me alone, culminating in this explicit request to leave me alone. She has not posted again yet, but it's been only a short time since then, and she has been pestering me over this since yesterday. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 25	23 June 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Board elections completed; results forthcoming	WikiWorld: "John Hodgman"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Dispatches: How Wikipedia's 1.0 assessment scale has evolved
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 26	26 June 2008	About the Signpost

Ting Chen wins 2008 Board Election	ArbCom's BLP "special enforcement" remedy proves controversial
Global group discussions in progress	WikiWorld: "Raining animals"
News and notes: Foundation hires, milestones	Dispatches: Reliable sources in content review processes
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) 08:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Elections

I voted for you but sadly , you did not win. sumal (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

OM/FT2/KL

I'm trying to make sense of this case. You are urging wait-and-see on ANI, which I agree is better than outrage. I was struck by your comment that we have *two* very different views of this case at the moment. The weird thing is that we have *two*: it would seem natural for the other rabs to make some comment. On the face of it, either FT2's statement, or KL's, is correct. If the other arbs could say which, then the rampant speculation could go away. Someone should ask them William M. Connolley (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Something in the middle could and likely is correct. I can see why they are investigating first, but I also totally agree we are owed an explanation. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ping

[4] This is why you shouldn't sleep half the weekend ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 12:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

When I refreshed my watchlist, I noticed that I added 25,000 and my comment was not that large. o.O

By the time I got to fix it, you already did :)

Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Getting out of hand

See the AE thread on AK "It's the mindless drones who are arguing for a ban which isn't even permitted per WP:BAN (read the policy) that are wasting time. It's a pity you can't respond to criticism of your own shortcomings with an admission of error but instead attack the messenger, not much more needs to be said about your failings... One Night In Hackney303 17:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   Now you're calling several people, including me, in this thread "mindless drones". Sounds like personal attacks to me. And yes, it is permitted by policy and his terms. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC) "

Pls handle the personal attack as warranted. THanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What about Hackney? I'll work up some details on your proposal on AE in a few hours. Pls keep open til I respond there. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, looking at that at this very minute. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I put a condition on my support, I hope that was ok. I just really really really really don't want us all to be back here in 3 months. Hell, in three months I start uni and they are making me take womens history.....acctually, lets end up here, it has to be more interesting than womens history. Oh, and I have to agree with Rlevse, Hackney really did not help the situation that had calmed down, IMO. Narson (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a look at your suggest and I'm still considering it - IMO, it's harsh topic banning an editor for a whole topic forever, and blocking them indef if they infringe on it. I would think 3 months is a good start and hopefully VK will continue with a similar attitude as he has done recently - if he goes back to his old ways, well, we tried and we can go back to the terms of probation, but at this stage, it may not be needed. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oi! We women are pretty interesting! Think about it... And thanks for stepping in, Ryan, it was time for this to finish before the partisan shouting took over, but it needed someone who is clearly not involved to gather the consensus. Risker (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Risker - No problems stepping in, it was getting a little nasty so I thought I'd try and bring it to a conclusion. Looks like I wasn't too far off the mark at least ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 20:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

THIS is NOT a step back. He's sees nothing wrong with what he said. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've asked him to take a step back from discussion and he's made no comments on it since. I think he realises he was too involved now so he's disengaged himself. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As a suggestion only, Ryan...User:McArt, with all of 7 edits since June 26th, may need some attention. I am holding my tongue, but I have a feeling telepathy might be working in this case. Risker (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, spotted that one. Not sure how a "new" editor can find his way onto WP:AE on his 7th edit knowing the ins and outs of the VK situation. Leave it with me, I'll find out who it is. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"Too involved" is a separate issue. He should apologize for the "mindless drones" and "cry me a river" comments. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course he should apologise, but saying someone should do something and then actually getting them to do something are two different things unfortunately. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Check your mail. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered again

Are you still mentoring PalestineRemembered? I'm quite concerned about some of his recent edits:

• In this edit he inserts some fairly negative, and possibly unsourced material about Omer Bartov, describing him as an "Israeli military historian". Bartov is, in actuality, is the John P. Birkelund Distinguished Professor of European History and Professor of History and Professor of German Studies at Brown University, and an expert in genocide.
• In this edit, which appears to consist almost entirely of original research, he links to www.vho.org/aaargh , the notorious Holocaust denial site Association des anciens amateurs de récits de guerre et d'holocauste. One would think, given his history regarding this, and his constant insistence on "reliable sources" and his alleged disdain for "hate sites", that he would avoid doing so.
• Here he inserts an entirely groundless speech about a website that misrepresents both policy and the site itself; he claims one cannot use Hebrew sources on English wikipedia, and assumes that because the site is not anti-Israel "it should be used with extreme care for "historical facts"."

I'd be interested in your response. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Omar Bartov is indeed an Israeli military historian; this is not somehow mutually exclusive with his twenty-word official academic title at Brown as typed out by Jay. There is negative well-poisoning and there is positive well-poisoning. PR's version was guilty of the former, Jay's of the latter. Neither was egregious.
2. PR's "groundless speech" on the reliable sources noticeboard was, in actuality, an on-point response to an explicit request for opinions about the reliability of said source. PR gave his reasonable assessment on the merits, and others responded respectfully, and the matter appears to have been settled in exactly the way such things are settled on the RS noticeboard. None of the participants in that discussion emerged rattled or upset; what's rattled Jay as an onlooker is a mystery.
3. PR did indeed link to the website of a Holocaust-denying outfit, but the document he's citing appears to come from the Jerusalem-based National Center for Psychosocial Support of Survivors of the Holocaust and the Second Generation, in turn citing a report from the Israeli prime minister's office in 1997. Now, I don't know if that document itself is legit, but www.vho.org/aaargh is only one of several websites that reproduce it, and there's no indication that PR knew it was a deniers' website. It'd be worth asking him, but my guess is that Finkelstein's book (which is the subject of the article in question) cites the document, and PR searched for an online version of it, and when he found one the URL www.vho.org didn't mean anything to him. Unless there's something I'm missing, PR's "history regarding [Holocaust denial]" consists entirely of one false accusation leveled by Jayjg. Jay's 'evidence' in that episode took less than an hour to demolish, but his eventual 'apology' took over a week to extract from the resulting rubble.--G-Dett (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Update Indeed, Finkelstein cites the report from the Israeli Prime Minister's Office on page 83 of his book. I'm all but certain PR simply tried to find an online version of that report. Many editors (including Jayjg) have stressed their preference for citations that can be found and verified online.--G-Dett (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, G-Dett, how nice to find you have followed me here to this Talk: page, to "support" me in that mysterious way of yours that involves disagreeing with everything I say. Bartov is an Israeli military historian? Funny, most of books all seem to be about the history of Germany and the Holocaust and about genocide - when did he write about the Israeli military? As for PR's speech on the reliable sources board, he basically said "Zionist, therefore unreliable" about a site about which he knew nothing. His POV and prejudice were completely unreasonable, as is your defense of him in this matter. Regarding the Holocaust Denial site, given PR's constant droning about "hate sites", one would imagine that he would actually take care not to link to them, regardless of the various far-fetched excuses given for his doing so. And finally, when and where have I "stressed [my] preference for citations that can be found and verified online"? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Peter Damian

Please see this ANI thread.[5] Just to let you know. --Risker (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Risker for letting me know - much appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to say that I strongly oppose your decision to Block Peter Damian indefinitely. You should have blocked him for a week. An indefinite block is a too extreme punishment for the crime. Could you please revise your punishment for Peter Damian. Thanks Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Per my comments here and the surrounding discussion, I think an incremental "second offense" block is more in order and I have shortened the block to 7 days. Thatcher 16:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Mind-meld

See [6] — Rlevse • Talk • 01:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, if you are uninvolved enough to track the Cla68 case with Jay, hook up with him, he can use the help he says. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks [7] Naerii 11:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nakba denial

Over at Gaza, 20th C, there is a statement "The city's growing population was augmented by an influx of Arab refugees fleeing Israel."

Clearly, this is nothing like adequate, it's denial. We know that they'd been (in modern parlance) ethnically cleansed from Israel eg Naeim Giladi says I reported to the Labor Office in al-Mejdil ... A clerk handed me a bunch of forms in Arabic and Hebrew. ... The Military Governor prohibited them from pursuing their livelihoods, just penned them up until they lost hope of resuming their normal lives. That's when they signed to leave. I was there and heard their grief.

This testimony is in Giladi's book "Ben-Gurion's Scandals" p.6/7 and at his web-site. (It's also carried by the notorious Jews Against Zionism). I wonder if you think the word of this ex-Iraqi Zionist is adequate. I'd like to insert "an influx of Arab refugees driven from Israel". PR^talk 13:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits

Hi Ryan, I wanted to make you aware of the fact that I have undone a tagging of Vintagekits's userpage done by John254[8] and have notified him of my actions here; I am telling you about it as you are the administrator who has taken leadership in resolving the debate at WP:Arbitration enforcement. I have assumed that John254's tagging was done in good faith, and that he was unaware of the continuing discussion. I hope that the issue of Vintagekits's status will be resolved soon. Risker (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Risker - thanks for that. I've closed the thread out now - let's just hope we've done the right thing. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No problems, Ryan. This has been a good day for VK, but I think he's been scared straight with this. He also knows that there are a few more admins watching his moves closely now. For myself, I've seen how difficult it is to draft conditions that are crystal-clear to everyone and still make sense for the encyclopedia; something to keep in mind, for certain. Risker (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits unblock

Thanks for handling the AE closure. Good call, IMO :) - Alison ^❤ 21:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem - I think it came to the right conclusion. It's an easy way out to block an editor with past problems, much harder to let them back in. There's plenty of people willing to keep an eye out here, and hopefully VK will respect the efforts some people have gone to to allow him to stay here. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 27	30 June 2008	About the Signpost

Private arbitration case criticized, vacated	Other ArbCom announcements reviewed in wake of controversy
Statistical model identifies potential RfA candidates	WikiWorld: "Mike Birbiglia and the Perils of Sleepwalking"
News and notes: Board votes released, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Sources in biology and medicine	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) 04:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation request

Hi, if you have the time, myself and User:CarterBar and to a lesser extent User:Crispness are in a content dispute over the usage of the term "British Isles" in reference to the articles Radio 4 UK Theme and BBC Radio 4. We've had discussions on my Talk page here - User talk:Bardcom#Radio 4 Theme. Thank you. --Bardcom (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I've only just seen that User:CarterBar has also looked for help -> Wikipedia:Help desk#How do I take a case to Arbitration. Thought I'd point it out - not sure myself what he's looking for... --Bardcom (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think the best course of action for now would be to take this to WP:MECOM. They're extremely good at sorting small disputes out (which this is). RfC's take a long time, and often don't get much outside interest. If you need help filing a case, let me know. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll leave it to CarterBar. He was originally looking for an impartial 3rd party - not sure why he's looking for an RfC. It was more in line with an impartial 3rd party that I turned to you. Thanks for the advice (BTW, what's MECOM?) --Bardcom (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I meant WP:MEDCAB - it's a place for informal mediation. I'm just a little busy off wiki at the minute or I'd have offered to help myself :-( Ryan Postlethwaite 21:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries - a 3rd opinion has been requested and just given on Talk:Radio 4 UK Theme, so it looks like it's being sorted. And thanks for the offer though. --Bardcom (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Smile!

Here's Triton for you! Triton somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Húsönd 01:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hi, You were briefly involved in a dispute involving myself and User:Bardcom yesterday, and although you indicated you have other commitments I was wondering whether you could spare a few moments to look at the general situation regarding this user, and perhaps offer advice as to how, or if, something can be done about it. If you're not aware of the situation a good place to start is here - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bardcom. The points raised in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bardcom#Statement of the dispute section are as valid to day as they were a few months ago, possibly more so, but as you pointed out, RfCs tend not to attract many people from outside; this was the case here. Nearly everyone who contributed to the RfC had an interest in the situation, even those that offered so-called outside views. Eventually it fizzled out and Bardcom was free to continue his war against British Isles in Wikipedia. Next, have a look at Bardcom's edit history (particularly today), and then look at his Talk pages (and archives). You'll see that there is a real issue here. At the risk of incurring his wrath once more - and inviting yet more warnings from him - it is my belief that his actions in systematically eliminating the term British Isles from this encyclopedia are compromising the integrity of the project as a whole, apart from all the other problems his actions are causing. I think that a completely independent view needs to be taken on the actions of this editor. Thanks, CarterBar (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Izmir lee, again

He's back as an anonymous IP this time [9]. This guy just won't stop.

--Tsourkpk (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for letting me know - could you bring it to my attention if there's any more please? Ryan Postlethwaite 20:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll be sure to do so. Thanks again. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ryan, looks like it's him again: [10], [11], [12], [13]. Slightly different IPs, but the edit pattern is the same. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, it's him - thanks for letting me know. I've extended the block on his main account to indefinite. Again, let me know if there's any more IP's. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Another one:[14]. This is guy is unstoppable. Looks like he has a dynamic IP address. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've range blocked one of his ranges, where he was getting most of his IP's from for 24 hours. That should at least slow him down for now. But please keep me updated. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu, MBisanz and Betacommand

You said: "He used that quote with MBisanz as well" - I remember that as well. Have you considered pointing this out to MBisanz as well? E-mail threats like that are particularly bad because they avoid transparency and work in the background off-wiki. Carcharoth (talk) 05:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

While I was at the mall when all this went down, I am up to speed and aware of the similar nature, per [15]. MBisanz ^talk 05:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it Matt - I wasn't sure whether or not it was said on or off wiki. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Block brags

See Vintagekits user page. He's bragging about the number of his blocks. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if he wants to brag about them, I guess he can. I wouldn't personally, but there's nothing against it. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I just cruised by to see what was on your user page, Ryan. I saw this, and checked out VK's page. He rm'd Sumo's comment, now Alison has advised him in strong terms to remove it. Go check it out. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I did see it. Whilst it would be a good idea to suggest to VK that he removes it, he certainly isn't bound to accept it. As I said, I wouldn't be bragging about something like that myself, but there's not much we can really do to stop him doing it if he wants to. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, I wasn't impressed with the flipancy he showed in removing the comment - I wish he'd have responded properly. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that too. Did you ever get with Jay about helping with the Cla68 case? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got it watchlisted, and I've been keeping an eye on it, but nothing has really needed doing "clerk" wise. Haven't had a chance to speak with Jay yet - I'll have to try and catch him on IRC. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Contras

Just to say it's moving. Shame one of the participants isn't involved, but I think we have enough views represented. My plan is to tackle the big, chunky issues first and then move onto finer detail. Please keep an eye (and/or ask another experienced mediator to) and drop me a line if you have advice or think I'm barking up the wrong tree. PS Has some dev been fiddling with the location of the minor edit tickbox? It's now way down below the wikimarkup list. What a bad idea that was. --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Answered you

— Rlevse • Talk • 01:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK entry

Ryan, while I can understand where you're coming from to an extent, reverting any mention of WR from today's DYK just smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I've reverted for the moment but c'mon - this went through the usual process already and overriding that is just not the thing to do here - Alison ^❤ 23:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, my friend - the fact that DS has already left messages for the editors involved (Neil, Peter Symonds, and whoever else) does not negate your personal responsibility to explain your actions to these respected editors. I urge you to do so, in a thoughtful, non-blaming way. Please consider it. Risker (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've had a chat with both of them - I certainly didn't remove the article to upset those two, they were both acting in good faith. Hopefully they will understand my reasoning, even if they don't agree (as a lot of people don't seem to do at this point in time, but I can't turn back the clock). Ryan Postlethwaite 02:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No that's fine; thanks for the note. However, I just updated the template from the Next Update, so I wasn't really involved with the selection. Once it's at T:TDYK and the Next Update, it goes through some rigorous checking by the DYK admin regulars (BorgQueen (talk · contribs), Gatoclass (talk · contribs), and other non-admins etc), so I had little hesitation about putting it on the template. It was a valid DYK, correct length, with verifiable sources, so those were probably the only issues that were looked for. Nevertheless, I see where you're coming from, and (had I been awake the duration of that DYK slot) would have had no objections. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle

I've restored Twinkle for the reasons outlined in the edit summary. On a closely related note, in the future, I'd appreciate it if you would contact me immediately, and preferably on my user talk page, about any concerns you're harbouring against me (sic!). Apart from potential instances of necessary and useful feedback, criticism or reminders, I will never forget that you vigorously defended subpar editing. user:Everyme 09:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Right.... Ryan Postlethwaite 13:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean it. If you have concerns, say it immediately, or never. user:Everyme 14:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that edit summary doesn't look good for the future I've got to say - You seem slightly flippant about why Twinkle was removed in the first place. That said, you're more than entitled to readd it, just be a little more restrained with it this time. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

RFAR rejects

Newest ones go on top, not bottom. I fixed it for you. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, that makes sense - thanks. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

??? Although unlikely to get accepted, with 12 active arbitrators this removal seems premature. Per policy and custom we normally wait 10 days before removing if a case does not get 4 net votes. As well as giving all arbs a chance to vote, this gives the involved users a chance to read our comments and members of the community a chance to see it and step in and help. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh I do apologise - I thought they were removed 24 hours after the fourth net vote to reject the case. I was getting mixed up with cases being accepted - I'll revert myself. Sorry about that Flo. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been email pinged!

I have replied sir : )

Oh and just so you know, it already weighed against me on my last one. History might repeat itself! Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Mizu

If you want to oppose her, ok, but I'm perplexed by your statement you want her to reconsider withdrawing. With all the pile ons, she'll never pass now. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Soliciting some feedback

Crossposting this to Wisdom's page as well.
Would you mind taking a look at how I judge admin candidates, and offering some feedback? I disagreed with you about Mizu, and I know you seem to have different standards, but I respect your opinion, and would like to pick your brain on the subject. Thanks, S. Dean Jameson 13:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi Ryan, just letting you know that I've sent you an E-mail. :) Best wishes. Acalamari 22:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've already read it - I'm going to have to think about this one..... Ryan Postlethwaite 22:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

missive from the broo ha ha avoidance network!

G'day ryan - in much the same spirit as you helped me out the other day by encouraging me not to break rules that would inevitably end up biting me, I thought I'd swing by here and try and explain why I think a short comment from you at Lar's talk page would go a long way... maybe an apology if you feel it appropriate (I do).

You see, when you say "I'd like someone with access to sensitive information not to be posting to such a site and discussing things with people that are solely there to harass members of our project" there's rather ugly implication that you somehow don't trust those specific people with the access to sensitive information - an implication that you feel they may breach the trust the community has placed in them, and share information which will be used to harm both this project, and volunteers who contribute.

If you don't intend to imply that, then it would be great for you to acknowledge that that is a reasonable interpretation of your words, and that it wasn't one you intended. If you simply don't trust Lar or Alison (for example) - then you need to be extra careful to either stick rigorously to your commitment to not comment on these issues, or to avoid running into problems with assuming good faith etc. - I think your recent comments at Lar's talk page were slightly over the line - no biggie at all in my book (yup - this pot is not afraid to pass comment on the kettle!!) - but a calm comment at this stage from you could go a long way... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I see one of my talk page stalkers has turned up here before I did (Hi, PM!). I think you might want to pop by my talk page, Ryan. ++Lar: t/c 01:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Quite, and thank you, PM. Ryan, I'd rather you'd just come out with "I don't trust you with sensitive information, Alison", and get it out in the open, rather than making these snide insinuations, as you have been doing over this past few days - Alison ^❤ 01:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

good on yer....

that was a very thoughtful post at Lar's page - I reckon! - now what's all this about mouldy pharaohs? - Privatemusings (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you pm - I've implied things over the past few days that I never intended to imply. I should have done an English degree - it might have taught me a thing or two! About the Pharaohs - for my masters thesis, I'm looking at the fungus present on liver, rib and ear samples from three egyptian mummies - It's really interesting actually, just a bit crap having write 20,000 words :-S Ryan Postlethwaite 01:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm seconding this, although I'd never spell it "yer." I found it brave of you to say "99.9whatever percent" and hope that the resulting discussion will not make you shy away from any such statement in the future. If we're more honest about our respective biases, it's a good thing. - brenneman 02:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Well, hopefully this is the last one I'll need, but thanks for the offer. --Jenny 18:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally I think you're right on the money in the Wikipedia Review matter. By sheer coincidence I had entered into evidence today in an arbitration case the existence of an attack forum against SlimVirgin there and checkusers are among those who post there (and I would add the same caveats that you would about not believing they're up to anything bad). I just think it's wrong, it encourages the impression that such forums are acceptable. --Jenny 18:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

RE:Message on my page

Sent. America69 (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As have I replied. America69 (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. America69 (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sending you another e-mail. America69 (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Special Barnstar
		For an issue we had and to say I'm sorry, I award you this barnstar! America69 (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Respectful disagreement

Hi, I hope we can agree to disagree about the Shoemaker's Holiday RFA. When I learned he was going up again I did ask him to make a fuller disclosure because the very special circumstances of his case weren't widely known within the community. Durova^Charge! 01:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Durova - I think that would be the best scenario. There were wider considerations that the committee had to make which weren't anything to do with his actual editing and I think those are best left in private. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, unless some very big surprise has been hidden from me all these months, I think I know exactly what those considerations are. They were misapplied with an exactitude that would be comical if this were fiction. Makes me want to reread Kafka and Joseph Heller. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 01:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What, exactly, are these secret considerations? Because, you know, they never bothered to tell me. I will gladly forward you every communication I've had with arbcom if you like. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker has given me permission to discuss this; the only backchannel concerns either of us are aware of concerning him relate to his health. As the editor who submitted the bulk of the Alkivar evidence, I am at liberty to forward you a copy for comparison if you wish to review why I consider Shoemaker's situation dramatically different from that one. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 02:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the remedy is vague on this point of whether he is permitted to request his access be restored directly from the Community and open to either interpretation: see my comment at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Voidable RFA. But, the fact that many read it as precluding RfA is a huge obstacle to Shoemaker's Holiday successfully passing one and as such needs to be cleared up with the Arbitration Committee. It is I guess but another unsatisfactory element to a very unsatisfactory decision. WjBscribe 02:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I am completely unwilling to voluntarily put a group that decided that my confession of health issues and agreement to voluntarily desysop should be oversighted, (and that I should instead be dragged through several months of hell that put me under so much stress that it made my health problems far worse, and forced me to drop out of the second semester of university for this year) in power over me again. I'd rather never become an admin again than that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's how the precedents stack up:

• Durova gave up her sysop access under controversial circumstances and must get it back through normal channels.Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova#Durova.27s_sysop_access

• Physchim62 gave up his sysop access under controversial circumstances and must get it back through normal channels. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Physchim62#Physchim62.27s_sysop_access

• For showing consistently poor judgment in performing administrative actions, Alkivar's (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) administrative privileges are revoked. He may apply to have them reinstated by appeal to the Committee, but not through the usual means. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alkivar#Alkivar_desysopped

• For misuse of his administrative tools and failure to relate appropriately with other administrators, MONGO is desysopped. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#MONGO_is_desysopped

No statement to specifically enable RFA; RFA is presumed. It is only with regard to other channels that the Committee specifies. Durova^Charge! 02:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a very persuasive argument. Though the decisions whether the availability of the "usual means" is expressly stated need to be considered too, the fact that the Committee voiced no objection to MONGO's RfA despite not having expressly authorised it is a very significant factor. The problem is that I don't think that helps you. Even if I were to agree with you - at the moment I do find the argument that RfA is permitted more persuasive - and made a statement to that effect, I don't think that will prevent those who think otherwise opposing. Even if every bureaucrat was of the same mind, I suspect a lot of commentators will prefer to form their own opinion and look to ArbCom for guidance. I think it would be wise to have them clarify this (as a general point) for future reference. WjBscribe 02:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 28	7 July 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency
Wikimedia releases 2008-2009 Annual Plan	Defamation case against Wikimedia dismissed
WikiWorld: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Adminbots, abuse filter, ArbCom, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, June
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) 09:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Earthquakes

I am having some trouble with this portal. I see you are great at promoting featured portals, and I need help performing the "show new selections" option on the page. Could you please help? --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 22:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I can give it a go :-) What exactly do you mean by "show new sections"? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

See Portal:Earth sciences. --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 23:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you already have it in - it's the "purge" template you have. But the problem is, to show new content, you need to encorporate {{Random portal component}} into your portal. I haven't used the template before, but I can find someone to help if you'd like me to? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please. --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 13:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've squeezed it in, but I still need to have the show new selections option. --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 13:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK Notice

Thanks for the DYK notice re:Bartholomew Gilbert (I think it's my 61st) and all your other miscellaneous work on the project. - House of Scandal (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Favor

Ryan, sorry I got pissed at AN/I, but could you do me a favor? Shot info did this edit, which removed the responses which I claim as mine. It takes forever for me to edit such a large page as AN/I, but would you mind giving Shot info a warning or something, and restoring the edits? They were my edits, even though Davkal wrote them, and that is quite alright per WP:BAN. Thanks (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Martin, thanks for the note. The problem with the edit you cite is that we don't allow comments posted on behalf of banned users. This edit was clearly by Davkal, as an IP, and you can't take responsibility for it. If it was an article edit, fair enough, but it wasn't. Can I suggest, that if you want to use the edit, you re-word it so it's clear that you, not Davkal, made the statement. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we do: "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them." [16] ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Posting in discussion on behalf of banned editors is proxying for banned editors, we don't do that. The quote you post is for article edits. Please make the comment yourself, in your own words. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing there that makes a distinction between article and discussion edits. Where does it say that? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the verification that the edits he made are true? This means that you must have sources to back up his claims, which will generally only be available for articles. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There is another answer. Shot info (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion pages are for expression of opinion, and I have verified that the posts represent my opinion, and I have independent reasons for expressing it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Davkal is banned, his edits aren't welcomed here. If express the same opinion, do so in your own words. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I just -I don't like to say won- but my argument was good about the verifiability. Now you changed the argument. I don't see where you're coming from here, relative to policy. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The Caledonia Mission

I have The Caledonia Mission on my watchlist (for some forgotten reason) and noticed you recently edited it. Don't you think it deserves a notability prompt at least? Share your thoughts. Danke. - 02:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I only fixed up the markup and put a stub tag on, but yeah, there is very questionable notability. I'd suggest taking it to AfD unless you can find sources to show notability. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The revert

Thank you. :) Acalamari 17:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What is your source of information? Too soon to be a coincidence.

Hello, Ryan. I see that you blocked User:Pascal Tesson sucks. What is the source of your information? I notified Pascal of the name and you blocked it very soon afterwards. Did Pascal Tesson contact you? Chergles (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hawayo Takata

Since you have a mop and keys, feel like addressing Aaxxll's repeated removal of all citations, references, and footnotes from the Hawayo Takata article? - House of Scandal (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Time management

In the time it took you to leave me that offensively condescending post on my talk page, you could easily have found that the user in question is being completely disruptive and needs a preventative, not punative block. Hope this helps --Badger Drink (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please take it to WP:AN if you disagree with the result from AIV. AIV isn't the place to contest block lengths. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even contesting a block length! Jesus mother and Mary! There was no block, hence there was no block length to dispute. --Badger Drink (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Upon third thought, it really does seem you're out to lunch on this one. The edits I reverted, with the exception of the AIV edit, were reverting of the clear-and-simple vandalism edits of a user who's left messages such as this on my talk page and the talk page of others. The AIV page was blank when I reverted, so there was no actual lost "progress". Cheers and cider, --Badger Drink (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yay! No more silly stuff!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting trolling on my talk page :) Shapiros10 contact meMy work 15:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Giano & the AN

Hello Ryan, things over at the administrators noticeboard now seem to be getting out of hand and people are starting to fall out. (Same usual story of civilised debates on Wikipedia). :S I was just wondering why we are having all this talk of policy changing just to suit one, uncivil, disruptive Wikipedian? Me and Xenocidic and a few others are asking the simple question...look at his immense list of blocks...why is he still being allowed to edit? We don't have to resort to changing a whole policy to suit one person, surely? Lradrama 16:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, there's a big divide about how to handle Giano. Some believe he should be held to the same standards as everyone else, and if he was, he'd have been banned a long time ago. He's got a lot of friends here, which means that they support him in situations when he's completely out of order. As I said in the AN thread, anyone else would have been blocked for that comment, but we still have people arguing that we're baiting him and he's done nothing wrong. I understand until's comments - we shouldn't be kidding outselves that we have a policy on civility that is equally enforced on everyone when one user is above and beyond that policy - it's a little wrong imo. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is wrong, as you have said, and as many others have said too. This should not be happening. I bet Giano is loving all this squabbling he has caused. If we have to treat Giano differently than everyone else, treat him much more leniently than everyone else, then I think it is a dire state of affairs. And many others agree. Whatever next... :'-( Lradrama 16:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User Damiens.rf

Ryan, I support the removal of Damiens.rf's twinkle; there is a pattern with him and a few other editors of running rampant through articles that contain images and attempting to remove the images and intimidate regular editors of those pages. They really have no solid ground to stand on right now with a practically non-existent and highly disputed NFCC policy. Cbsite (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks a lot for the Barnstar, Ryan, and the kind words! Those mean a lot! :) Thank you! Acalamari 15:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand

But it is ok for me to be called a vandal, a troll and a dick - and that's just in the last 24 hours? Yes, I'm going to take someone else's advice and chill out but so should Betacommand. Citizensmith (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

BAHAHAHAHA

You made someone delete the main page? lol --Carbonrodney (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Working Group Wiki Final Report

Hey, as a reminder, the Working Group is approaching our 6-month deadline for producing our final report. The draft is being built at [17]. Could you please stop in, and see if there is anything you'd like to add? Or if not, just signoff at the talkpage that you are okay on how things are going? Thanks, Nishkid (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Done for now; I need sleep!

There's the template I showed you yesterday. You can start writing some of the entries from the beginning like we talked about. I've been using a fairly straightforward "form letter" approach to the articles, and you can see different versions by going through the years. I have now written the article for 1970, and the articles from 1982 to 1993. WBOSITG wrote the 2003 article. Have fun! Read over my articles and let me know what you think. Mike H. Fierce! 11:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me?

Are you accusing me of abusing the tools? Because that would be a very serious accusation if it were, so I want it clearly stated. I didn't block him for just that comment, but for the combined effect of all of the incivility and personal attacks that I listed in my addendum. I recused myself already from any blocks regarding his talk page edits, but mass incivility is unacceptable. Cheers, CP 18:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The other 24 hours was for talk page edits, and did not come from me. How about I reduce the block to 3 days? Cheers, CP 18:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I left a message at User talk:Jauerback that you might be interested in. Cheers, CP 18:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I realize, of course, what you were trying to do with this edit, but I don't feel that that outburst should have been hidden. I won't revert it of course, but you do seem intent on giving Bart far more chances than anyone else is. Also, feel free to edit this post to remove the diff link once you've read it. Cheers, CP 22:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of the block, I'll be honest with you... but, there's no way I'm letting attacks like that stay here. The usual is revert, block and ignore, well, he's already blocked, so the best way to ignore him is to protect his page. We don't generally extend blocks because people make outbursts when they're blocked. It's all in the edit history, so there's no hiding it away. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Bert Corona

Your July 21 edit to Bert Corona deleted a reference to his archive of papers at a university library. Why do you think this is inappropriate? Dwalls (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The guy who added it added similar links to other articles. It was link spamming. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Turkish issue - a possible Izmir lee sockpuppet

Hello Ryan Postlethwaite. Do you remember all those issues with User:Izmir lee, whom you ended up by blocking indefinitely? I may be wrong but it looks to me that he has created a new account the following day after the block, under the name User:Aegean Boy. They have the same contributions profile, defend the same positions, etc. Could you check it out? Thanks! The Ogre (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

And he has already done 4 reverts. The Ogre (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's him. He has exactly the same interests and the account was created the day after he was indef blocked. He even argues in the same way. Too many coincidences if you ask me. --Tsourkpk (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've opened a sockpuppetry against him here [18]. Please feel free to weigh in when you're back. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ryan Postlethwaite. Could you please check out Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Izmir lee? Things are getting out of hand. Could you came by and speak your mind, even if against my views? Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking into this now. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ryan and thank you for taking the time to look into this. I had a feeling it was him, but couldn't be sure without a checkuser. Thank god for administrators like you. I don't know what wikipedia would become without you guys. Regards. --Tsourkpk (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Revert this vandalism?

This revert looks like vandalism to me. The quote may or may not be true, but it's presumably verifiable and attacks on the credibility of the author look as if they fall flat on their face (as well as coming from a racist and dubious source). The revert certainly bears no relation to anything in talk, to which no contribution has been made by the editor in question (I can't see any contribution to Talk from him in the last 6,000 words). Shall I simply go ahead and re-revert for vandalism, over-riding usual I-P restrictions? PR^talk 19:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Ryan, a more pertinent question is why is PR reverting in an obvious hoax quote, inserted by an antisemitic IP editor? (See Talk:Menachem_Begin#Menechem Quotes 2, where this absurd canard is rightly dismissed by editors from all sides). Given this on-going tendentious editing, combined with his continual use of Talk: pages as soapboxes, I'm highly tempted to block him myself, but given that you're his mentor, I thought I should let you take action. Your thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As I made plain, I'm not commenting on the correctness or otherwise of this quote (it seems odd that we have to go to an ancient periodical for a citation to this quote from Menachem Begin). However, it's removal was clearly vandalism, presumably based on IDONTLIKEIT and backed by a fraudulent summary - from a source known to cheat (including an attempt on the administration of WP) and, for instance, ignored by at least one Israeli newspaper (apparently due a long history of making tendentious complaints).

Under such circumstances most editors would not hesitate, and do what I planned to do, over-ride the vandalism and certainly not bother checking for a second opinion.

I would question why Jayjg is so concerned about the reputation of a violent racist who David Ben-Gurion equated to Hitler and about whom Albert Einstein was really quite horrible. It hardly seems like the action of a level-headed administrator facilitating improvements to the project. But I'm used to this targeting of me, Jayjg recently threatened to block me if I ever again named the world's only (?) main-stream convicted denier! I'm still waiting for a consensus on WP:HATE-SOURCES, the concept is well-understood indeed, but applied in a shockingly partisan fashion, with people even being blocked for citing the gentle, careful and (almost certainly) accurate work of the really quite notable "JewsAgainstZionism.com" PR^talk 13:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbcomopentasks

Hey Ryan. I note that you've opened an arbcom case for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar, and added it to this template. Not sure how to fix it, but I'm getting everything as a redlink - since there's no actual evidence page (everything being private in e-mail to the cmte), should the links go somewhere else? The main case page, perhaps? You also have the date as the 28th, which is 5 days from now, as an FYI. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Just fixed it, hopefully you understand where the initial confusion was as this isn't like a normal case. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

and I just EC'd here telling you to ignore that, as you've fixed it. I can totally understand that, though it's good that the case's existance is out in the open, at least - the better to avoid drama, I hope. Thanks again for the quick catch. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So is the date of 28 July an expected decision date, or some sort of submit-your-evidence-by date? Thanks again, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that's the wrong date that I entered! :-) It should say 23 Jul 2008 - it's just the date that the case was opened. I'll go and fix it - thanks for keeping tabs on me! Ryan Postlethwaite 14:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Medcom nom

I had thought it was acting (and actively listed) members of Medcom. Apologies for that. Rudget 17:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, don't apologise. Whilst Martin and Ral might be inactive in cases, they certainly do work behind the scenes, so they're still technically active. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution

The discussion is concluded, with all the editors agreeing to {{Essay}} as the page header. I've thus unprotected it; now that there's consensus, there shouldn't be any more edit warring. Is this okay with you? If not, feel free to trout me, but it seemed an uncontroversial action in light of the consensus. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Peter, good to hear from you. Thanks for notifying me of this - I have no concerns at all with you unprotecting the page because you've had a neutral look and seen a consensus. If edit warring breaks out again, we might have ti reprotect - hopefully it won't reach that stage however. Thanks again, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Review

My reply here. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK update

Thanks for updating it. However, two problems. First, you did not protect the picture (I did it for you), and you shjould have found one or two more hooks to use. We try to use six at the minimum, and sometimes more to match the length of what's on the right side of the main p0age. Still, every admin has a first time, so now real harm.--Bedford ^Pray 03:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was considering an extra one, but there difference didn't seem to much so I didn't add it. Feel free to add one though if you think it's appropriate. The picture protection was on my mind the whole time - God knows why I didn't protect it! Thanks for your comments - I like to learn from experience! :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 03:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I would, but 2 of the three oldest valid ones are my own, so I'd hate to do that. Did you archive the old ones?--Bedford ^Pray 03:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh, archive??? Would you mind doing it, and I'll check your contribs so I know how to format it? Sorry for taking your time up. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Just did it.--Bedford ^Pray 03:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Trout

Thanks for the note (and the trout :-P) - I have definitely learned some lessons from this. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

MP redesign proposal coding fixes implemented

I've implemented the coding fixes for you at your request (User talk:ChyranandChloe), though it would have been a lot easier if you told me to do so two weeks ago when I offered it. Nevertheless the major fixes are in place, though I still recommend that you clean up and revise your code (for example: you closed more tables than you opened, wikipedia isn't suppose to allow the h2 tag WP:HTML, you shouldn't need to add a margin each time just to align your boxes, the top three sections doesn't even make sense, and so on). In aestetics Wikipedia doesn't use a white (#FFFFFF) background because it supposedly irritates or provokes people, instead it uses a slight blue-green color (#F8FCFF).

This is your ideas, and your entry, good luck. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Our convo at ANi

Well, please accept my apologies then. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

NO! I will do no such thing. Beam 16:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason I won't accept your apology, is because there was no need for such a thing. Just a simple misunderstanding or mis comprehension. Just knowing you see your mistake is fine with me buddy. Beam 16:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response - I just wanted to make it clear that I misunderstood the way you were putting your point across, so my initial response was unfair - hence the apology. I'd seriously take it - I don't give many of them out!! ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 16:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 29	14 July 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency
WikiWorld: "Goregrind"	Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 30	21 July 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "Cartoon physics"	News and notes: New Board Chair, compromised accounts
Dispatches: History of the featured article process	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) 06:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, wich was successful with 73 support, 6 oppose, and 5 neutral. I'll try to be as clear as I can in my communication and to clear some of the admin backlog on images. If there is anything I can help you with, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page! Cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thankspam

Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RfB Thank You spam

Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

My RFC

If I have abused the administrative tools, then an RFC should be filed. Don't let a thing like me not having the tools get in the way. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop trolling sir. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

To quote Heath Ledger, why so serious? RFC/U is the appendix of Wikipedia - had some use in the past, but we don't know what it is, and it's now dangerous and not taken seriously. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Testing

Looks fine so far. I am obliged to you, sir. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah good - I usually stink at removing autoblocks! You're a sensible guy - just stay out of trouble! ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 02:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I am working from a different computer, unfortunately; but I can check the other one tom'w if you're interested.

Would you consider imposing tags? The dispute is real, and tags may attract third parties to the discussion. (If not, oh well; but that would be my only motive to meddle with the text.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I really can't because there seems to be a strong consensus against them. Why don't you start an RfC? I think that could get some good neutral input. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring and page protection for WP:FRINGE

You described the situation on WP:FRINGE as serious edit warring. Since I seemed to have triggered it with an attempt to use WP:BGD to generate discussion. I'm not sure I agree with your description of the reverts going on as "serious edit warring". Please walk me through how you came to that conclusion so that I can understand better your rationale?

My original expectation was that a third party editor would revert my changes or there would be discussion generated, rather than a flurry of back and forth reverts. Did the editors not read the talk page? Did I make a bad assumption that made the situation worse? HatlessAtless (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(sorry this was half a day delayed, I somehow read in the edit summaries and such that a different user had protected the page) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HatlessAtlas (talk • contribs) 11:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Get specific

Give me the specifics. Somehow I think the libel suit would have been filed closer to Feb. 22, when the New York Times website published this. Get your facts straight. See the last section on the Talk:Barack Obama page. Note that the discussion has ended. Noroton (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I take it the silence from your end is because you're conscientiously going through the sources to see that I've backed up what I've said, and therefore my comments about this WP:WELLKNOWN figure can't be described as "unsourced or poorly sourced". Or, alternately, you'll tell me specifically what specific statement I shouldn't have made and specifically why. If you can't back up your templating my talk page with a large warning, I expect you to remove it and give me an apology for bothering me, which is why I'm holding my temper. It's late where I am, and I'm going to bed. I take it you're in the U.K. I shouldn't have to have that template on my talk page much longer without a full explanation. Noroton (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that your back to editing, will you respond to my request for clarification or do I need to complain about your conduct elsewhere? Noroton (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It was this post where you specifically labelled ayers a terrorist. You didn't back that up with a single source to back that up. "Ayers fits the definition of terrorist to a "T" and was called a terrorist before the Obama campaign and even before 2001. Ayers flouted not just laws but democratic rule in the U.S. -- he wanted to terrorize people into submission." is simply unaccepable. You can't make claims like that about someone, even on a talk page, without a reliable source that says he's a terrorist. You did the same in this post as well - made claims without backing them up. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you read the thread as a whole or know the background. The issue of including Bill Ayers has come up before on Talk:Barack Obama and I assumed discussion participants were aware of the sourcing that does, in fact, exist. Should I have provided the sourcing immediately? I suppose so, now that I think about it, but by the time you saw the AN/I posting, I had provided numerous sources in that thread which specifically backed up my statements. Also, the sources I've read in the press gave me the clear impression that nothing I was saying was exceptional -- kind of like criticizing George Bush on a talk page. If you had simply asked or even told me that I must provide the sourcing as per WP:BLP, I would have immediately done so (or, in this case, simply referred you to the specific sources I'd already provided in the thread).

Please go over the thread itself, not just individual links to individual posts, and tell me where I've made statements that aren't backed up by sourcing. Please tell me if you don't see sourcing for the specific comment you just said "is simply unacceptable". If you find anything that I've said that you still don't think is sourced, I'll either find a source for you or remove the comment. Noroton (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Your signature

I haven't seen you sign with this signature for well over a year now. :D Acalamari 16:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, yeah I decided to go back to the old one. I like it, but everyone on IRC says they hate it! Oh well, as long as I'm happy! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't hate it: I always liked it. :) I'm glad it's back. Acalamari 16:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Add me to the list of people who dislike it :-) —Giggy 02:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's bloody amazing giggy! What would you know any way!?! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If it fills my screen, you know it's good. —Giggy 03:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

For my own clarity

Just for my own clarity, if/when Wikiarrangementeditor decides to violate 3RR after his current block is listed for the 5th time in the last several months, should it continue to be reported at AN3RR or would it be advised to escalate it to ANI? Thanks! roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just keep on reporting it to AN/3RR - that's where all 3RR complaints are dealt with. If it comes a serious concern, the reviewing admin can move the report to AN/I (such as if/when a ban/editing restriction might be proposed). Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The block log shows it as "infinite"[19], I assume this is a mistake and it should be 48 hours? --Snigbrook ^(talk) 18:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops yeah, thanks for spotting that. I've corrected it now. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to remind you

that Noroton and Curious bystander are eagerly awaiting counselling on the specifics (in re: to why you thought they needed the BLP warning or what they did wrong). When (and if) you do counsel them, per the remedy itself, you might also need to include what steps they need to take to avoid such vios in the future. I was considering giving it a shot, but it's too late for me now, so I'm leaving it to you...have fun. :D (or try to!) - Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm in uni now so I'm trying to do things that don't need much explanation (I need to concentrate on my work!) but I'm leaving soon, so when I get home, I'll get stuck in with that. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Clue request

Hi, Ryan - I don't remember if I've interacted with you before, but quite a few people (either by talk page post or e-mail) drew my attention to this. Not a big deal, but if you'd like to offer any examples or any advice as to where I could find one, I'd love to hear it. Kelly ^hi! 23:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ping. Kelly ^hi! 21:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

VP

It was worth a try, with good faith; but clearly, he made his choice. Thanks for keeping an eye on the situation. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering, was a ban really necessary, considering that the one and only edit by the editor to Pedophilia simply corrected text anomalies? ~ Homologeo (talk) 07:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey there Homologeo. The ban really was necessary - he was unblocked under a firm understanding that he would not edit pedophile articles, yet within 15 edits, he chose to break that, and showed complete disregard to the terms of unblock. I was very happy to see him back, provided he stayed completely out of pedophile articles, it's sad that he chose to go down a different route. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Blink

Thanks for your help with that image. What an awesome freakin' episode. Cirt (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No probs, I just saw your notification pop up on my watchlist and I went to see if we could sort it out without deleting. Not a big fan of any FU though if I'm being honest. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well FU in general is another matter, but regardless thanks for the help! Cheers, Cirt (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Extra long article title here.

I am sure I could find a source or two and bump it to WP:DYK. </sarcasm> Wow!<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 23:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Changes to WP:UP#NOT/9

Ryan, In considering the merits and difficulties of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Abd/Allemandtando, I would be interested in your opinion on recent changes [20] to WP:UP#NOT/9. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

How WP:CIV works

Remember the content of the emails I fwd to you? See what others think about such behavior. There are I days I fear for this project... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If I was you, I'd just ignore him. The guys obviously trolling and looking for a response - no need to feed him IMHO. I agree it's not the most civil, maybe a year ago we could have put down the ban hammer for that, but unfortunately times have changed and some admins class WP:CIVIL as more of a guideline than the official policy that it is. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The trend to disregard CIV is, IMHO, one of the biggest threats to the future of this project. However, there are also positive trends: consider Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions. I would think that for those trolling emails, Boody should at the very least be put on the warning list there. What do you think about that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, you've won your edit-war, and had him blocked for 48 hours, but now you're over-reaching. Try to win the content disputes on the article Talk: page, not by getting your opponents banned, ok? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've got to say Jay, those emails were bad, really bad in fact. There wasn't any need for Boodles to escalate it to attacks via email. But, I agree - the best thing everyone can do now is to discuss on talk pages and hopefully we can have a productive discussion on content and get the disputes sorted. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see the e-mails, so I don't know what was in them, but how do you feel about Greg calling Boodles (and others) a "troll" and "cockroach" and "dog" below? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Building strawmen does not work. Sending emails like "you are a dick" is trolling, that's plain and simple. And cockroaches and dogs are not used as epithets for Boody but in a metaphors. Semantics can be important, sometimes. In any case, there is an ArbCom ruling specific to such behaviors and case. I hope Ryan will review the ruling I linked above - I fully believe Boody has gone way beyond what it was designed to prevent, and he should be officially put on the warning list. He has already received a barnstar for his offensive emails, I believe he deserves a little more than that.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Metaphor is close but it mostly relates to poetry; allegory in relation to animals is a closer term. Holy cow, used by late Yankees' broadcaster Phil Rizzuto nicknamed Scooter, is one example. British editors should be familiar with the term since many British writers use allegory as a tool. George Orwell in Animal Farm - all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others writing about communist regime during Stalin reign, and he couldn't write straight since USSR was yet an Ally back in 1945; C. Northcote Parkinson in Parkinson's Law - long live and breed about office force; A. A. Milne in The House at Pooh Corner about Rabbitt and all his family and friends - Rabbitt never appeared alone; and more recently John LeCarre in his various spy novels - when you spot one bug, be aware there are others hidden behind walls about eavesdropping devises and surveillance assets. Concerning trolls - I didn't address any user in particular since I have no means to know if a particular suspect maintains more than one account, just in general - that's what allegory is for - If you spot one troll, be aware there may be more lurking around meaning a suspect may have more accounts than one (sockpuppets). Once again, it's an allegory regarding trolls in general terms, not any particular editor. greg park avenue (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Easy does it. Trolls like cockroaches hide inside big city walls behind the dynamic IP, have access to the a friendly library just around the corner, an invitation to send an especially abusive message and five minutes walk away only. There is nothing you can do about it. I think the best advise is Ryan's - ignore them. Dogs bark, caravan goes forward. Who says you must respond to the likes as Malik Shabazz or Boodlesthecat? Let's ignore them for a change. greg park avenue (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, there you have the conflict in a nutshell. Apparently Boodles is inexcusably rude, but calling editors "Trolls" and "cockroaches" and "dogs" is not. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Take it easy, User Jay-G, trolling of one user was already established on this very page by English Wikipedia administrators, I took it from here, but I assume calling someone "dick" to one's face was just personal. Take a look at another trolling here - it's even more serious, because that user went nationalistic (read ballistic) breaking all Wikipedia rules. Imagine something like that addressed to a User who identifies with Jewish nationals. All I suggested to User Piotrus was to follow Ryan's advise and just ignore both Users in question. I know from autopsy it's no magic and doesn't work overnight, but it supposed to work in a month or so. Cheer up! greg park avenue (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

New Izmir lee sockpuppet

Hello Ryan Postlethwaite! I beleve that User talk:88.255.188.188 is a new User:Izmir lee sockpuppet. Could you please check it out? Thanks! The Ogre (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

And in fact User:OlympiADdict‎ seems to be another one! Even if the anon account is used to supposedly vandalise the logged in account (which) is strange given the fact that OlympiADdict‎ helped clean up the accusation the anon made against me in 3RR notice board and erase my warnings from the anon talk page! The Ogre (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey there Ogre. Thanks for bringing them to my attention - they're both clearly socks. I've blocked them both. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure! The Ogre (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Ryan Postlethwaite! One more sockpuppet: 85.108.154.228 (talk and contributions)... The Ogre (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

....and blocked again. I wonder when he'll get bored! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Indef?

Hey Ryan! Did you mean to block this IP indef? KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 18:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey KOS. Oops! I've just started using a new script on Special:blockip and I set the exiry for 24 hours, but when I then gave the reason "sockpuppetry", it automatically changed the duration to indef. Thanks for bringing it to my attention and I've fixed it now. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought as much. I used to make the same mistake when I was using DerHexers' script. Incidentally, what script are you using? KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 18:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I just transcluded User:East718/monobook.js into my monobook because I guessed east would have some cool tools! I used to use DerHexer's, but the box in the left hand corner that had "quick" deletes and blocks broke when I moved over to FF3 and instead of corvering the navigation box, started covering articles. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks!

Thank you... ...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff 22:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Last time (Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Archive_22#Question) you and Rlevse said to contact you if PM started going back to BLP edits. So I'm contacting you re: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Giovanni_di_Stefano_and_the_GFDL and User_talk:Sarcasticidealist#before_you_hop_in_your_Kia. MBisanz ^talk 14:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Working Group Final Report

As a reminder, the Working Group's deadline to post a final report, occurs on August 7. A draft final report is now on EN, at Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars/Draft report. Could you please review it, and either edit it, post comments at the talkpage, and/or post your endorsement at the bottom of the report? Thanks, Nishkid (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Heya, we're planning on making the report final tomorrow (August 7, the 6-month mark). If you get a chance, could you please review and/or endorse? Thanks, --Elonka 14:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Jesusisabeast

Ryan, why did you find it necessary to block the above user at UAA? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Wisdom. I blocked the user because Jesus is the son of God in the eyes of Christians, and referring to him as a beast is clearly going to be offensive to that religion. It was a standard offensive username block. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I can see how maybe someone might perceive it as offensive (slangwise, "beast" can also be a compliment I might quip), but given that the user was editing productively, why not just ask him/her to change their name? We probably just lost an editor due to the block. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

With usernames like that, we block on sight because we don't want to reduce the decorum in editing - as I said, it was clearly offensive to Christians. I didn't look over the contribs, but they were clearly acting in good faith - I'll pop over to his talk and make sure he knows he's welcome to create a new username. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, sorry if I came on a little strong, Ryan, I was just surprised at the block, not aghast. I'm a Christian myself and I personally wasn't offended, but saw the potential for it, which is why I suggested the talk template. Anyway, I'm not trying to tell you how to administer blocks or anything like that, you're a great administrator. Have a good one. Cheers! Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A probable Izmir lee sockpuppet?

Helo once more Ryan Postlethwaite! Sorry to bother you again, but I believe User:Lokum may be a "deep undercover" User:Izmir lee sockpuppet. Could you check it? Thanks! The Ogre (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Access

Zilla like access to ##en-wikipedia-admins please. Is admin.[21] bishzilla _ROARR!! 21:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC).

Whatever Zilla wants Zilla gets! I could find a dino nick, so I had to give it to your slave - hope that's ok. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Jeffpw

Beat me to it - was just going to get CU to see if there's a link. Not sure what it will proove one way of the other of course. Thanks Ryan. Pedro :  Chat  22:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we can be fairly sure it's true if they resolve to a similar geographic location - it's on of those where we're just looking for the IP's to be close, not exactly the same ranges. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed 5 day ban for you and others

See the PalestineRemembered discussion on WP:AN. Do not take it the wrong way. Everyone will benefit from a brief wikipedia holiday. I will abide by it myself from 4 August to 8 August. Spevw (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I am returning from a 5 day ban. I suggested that all parties, including anyone who commented on the PalestineRemembered ban be banned from editing for 5 days to promote clearer thinking. I now have clear thinking. However, everyone else did not observe the ban. The situation is not resolved. If everyone listened, then the situation may have been resolved around now. Oh, well. Spevw (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Joe Dudley DYK

Please reconsider your edit. The original hook was inspiration and a testament to the human spirit to overcome adversity. The anon claims that there is a BLP issue is rather insulting to people like Joe Dudley and others with similar circumstances. It implies that there is something to be ashamed of and hidden. As someone with family members sharing those circumstances, I can say there is NOTHING to be ashamed of and Wikipedia shouldn't be promoting the view that there is. Please reconsider you edit and allow the original hook to stand. While I'm sure intentions were good, the change is actually quite hurtful. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. I happen to completely disagree with you on this matter, and don't think it's a good idea that we publicise people's diagnosis of mental retardation on the main page. But I've opened it up for wider review on AN/I. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet another Izmir lee sockpuppet

Hello Ryan,

It seems the unstoppable Izmir lee is back again, this time using a sleeper account User:Lokum. The fact that the Lokum account was created on 23 January 08 but did not really edit until 22 July, which is the same date that Izmir's sock User:Aegean Boy was indef blocked, makes me particularly suspicious, as does this edit here [22]. You will also notice the same edit pattern, with a particular interest in diplomacy and sports related articles, as well as the familiar single-minded POV-pushing. I'm pretty sure a checkuser will confirm it's him. Is it possible for you to ask for one directly, or do I need to open a sockpuppetry case against him? Is there anything that can be done long term against this guy? He is the most disruptive editor I've seen in a long while. Thank you for your time. --Tsourkpk (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Hi Ryan, I have recently undertaken to mentor User:Ottava Rima‎ in lieu of an indef block.[23] However, WP:MENTOR is a fairly scant page, but I notice you have have experience in this area. Myself, Karanacs and Ottava have drafted rough terms here, but I suppose we need guidance from somebody with more experience of this kind of thing. Any help appreciated. Ceoil ^sláinte 08:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review#11_August_2008

For some reason Wikipedia:Deletion review#11 August 2008 isn't showing for me. Is it showing for you? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm, it wasn't earlier for me, but it is now. Try purging and see what happens. I'm on IRC now, so let me know if it's still borked. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Clodagh Rodgers

I wanted to make a DYK out of Jack in the Box (song) (I substantially rewrote it...I'm trying to pick up with the Eurovision articles again), because I feel the IRA death threat sourcing is a good hook, but I think I need to find more sources. Would you like to help me? Mike H. Fierce! 09:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Testing

So would this be good? Maxim (☎) 20:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Or this? Maxim (☎) 20:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

First one - the seconds just a little too big. I'd personally prefer it blinking..... but you'd probably end up getting blocked! :-D Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So like this? Maxim (☎) 20:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice.... But not as good as my sig. Obviously. Particularly given the myriad versions of mine on WP used by my socks other editors. Pedro :  Chat  20:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

But obviously mine beats Pedro's. Right? No? Oh. ;_;  Asenine  18:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Your user talk archives

I hope you don't mind; I fixed the typos in the link text for your archives. It was really confuzzling, with the dates all overlapping. If you'd rather me not do that, please revert and advise. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Jerry - thanks for fixing those for me, you're always welcome to come and fix things I've screwed up! I appreciated it a lot. Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel RfA

Re this comment: Comments which are unrelated to the discussion at hand should be posted at the addressee's user talk page. I'm sick and tired of seeing people (mostly admins) move perfectly relevant bits of discussion to RfA talk pages because some (mainly non-admins) indulge in unconstructive and misplaced meta-commentary like yours. user:Everyme 07:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, but I think it's often better to address problems in the place they originate. I'm not a fan of dragging things to multiple venues. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, the line has to be drawn somewhere. E.g. this very exchange originates in the RfA, but clearly doesn't belong there as I'm sure you would agree. Looking, as I am, for the most plausible and convenient substitute for a bright-line rule as to what comments belong in a given discussion and which don't, the best I can think of is to distinguish by direct relevance to that discussion. Otherwise, how do you for yourself plausibly distinguish between e.g. your meta-comment re: Sceptre's Kurt-bashing and my meta-meta-comments here?

Moreover, from my experience, any meta-commentary posted within an RfA related to Kurt-bashing can only ever lead to heat as it invites drama and some can never resist that invitation. An alternative would have been to simply ask Sceptre to consider refactoring (striking or whatever) his comment at his user talk. Imho, that's far more useful as it demonstrates an effort towards avoiding the escalation of such an irrelevant and possibly disruptive exchange ("Preventing disruption" being the most commonly cited reason for moving comments to RfA talk pages). user:Everyme 15:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Short objections posted to RfA, where they originate are actually preferable. If its a longer objection, then its more appropriate to take it to a talk page (either the RfAs, WT:RFA, or the users). The removal of comments happen when we move off the topic of course. But the difference between Ryan's comment, and other Kurt comments is that this comment was directed to Sceptre and not Kurt himself (the former being less controvesial than the latter). Although I wouldn't mind seeing an addition for RfA comments at WP:TALK, I'd assume commonse sense applies to discussion (yet RfA is a realm of its own of course). Synergy 15:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

<- "The removal of comments happen when we move off the topic of course": (Re)moval of relevant and half-decently formulated comments is absolutely unacceptable under all scenarios; that's precisely why people should avoid posting meta-commentary as much as possible, because it destroys reasonable discussion about the topic at hand. Seeing admins indulge in that sort of thing is a bit gross. I'll think back to this exchange the next time some admin moves a thread containing a valid comment of mine to the RfA talk page because someone started posting unrelated meta-commentary and others responded in kind (Sceptre reacted very politely, not something that can reasonably be expected of all people). Apropos, what a silly wording this is anyway: "Sceptre, please can you get over your hatred of Kurt? It's getting tiresome now and a lot of your comments are looking extremely pointy." There's not even a specific desired reaction being implied with that. Totally gratuitous in that form. A simple "would you mind refactoring your comment to avoid any unuseful disruption" would have gone a long way. An admin should know that. 'nuff said. user:Everyme 19:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Page

Ryan,

In the last few weeks I have made edits to Seth MacFarlane and Jim Carrey's webpage. They both had information in there that I felt was unnecessary, useless information. I deleted a total of about 2 sentences, and Miranda feels she has the right to own both pages and put them right back up. She said that this is wrong because they came from reliable sources. I'm sure there are a lot of things that they have both said that have come from reliable sources, but we don't put them all on the page do we? So I asked Miranda if I could put in a sentence of my own if she would not let me delete the other sentences. MacFarlane clearly states that he is for the legalization of marijuana in a video online, and it is on several other websites in text. I don't know why it is her say to tell me what is and what isn't a reliable source. (the video is on numerous sites, not just youtube; also we know the video hasn't been edited because it was a video of him speaking at a college; this text probably could be found somewhere) Also Jim Carrey never said that he likes the death metal band "Cannibal Corpse." A member of Cannibal Corpse said this, and this makes it just as an unreliable source as the stuff I put on there. I tried to discuss it on both of the article's talk pages, but she ignored me. Seth MacFarlane's page is locked, and the dispute will never be settled until she continues her conversation on the discussion page. She is not an administrator, so I believe I have just as much of a say of what makes or doesn't make these two articles better. --Randomface123 (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

MacFarlane

I'll see if I can find anything that you would consider a reliable source. Also, if someone feels like information in an article is unnecessary, then can you delete it? Miranda kept putting the information back, and I was wondering why it couldn't be eliminated. By the way, when will people be able to edit his page again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomface123 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I can not find anywhere in an article that states that he is for the legalization of marijuana besides the video, however, there are many sites that state "he quit smoking marijuana." This could be included in his personal life section.

[24]

If this seems unnecessary to include, then that's fine. Just a sugesstion Thanks --Randomface123 (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Input

Invite input here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Santeni — Rlevse • Talk • 14:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Folksong

Re this edit:

Don't make up nonsense, Sheriff, it doesn't make you look good.

Your rewriting of the rules -- and reality, such as your nonsense about "baiting" -- out of spite is hereby noted. Try a little reading first before automatically assuming bad faith. Hint 1: read the deletion log for User talk:Folksong. Hint 2: Read User:Folksong. Not too difficult, really, so I'm sure you can do it. --Calton | Talk 19:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, it's pretty clear that the whole "chronology" thing has escaped you. Pay closer attention. --Calton | Talk 20:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and look, the policy-violating nonsense that is User:Folksong has been restored by 76.208.191.18 (talk · contribs), maker of quality edits such as this. Good choice you've made, there. --Calton | Talk 20:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ya know what, you just don't get it Calton

I get it perfectly fine:

1) You've mistaken your admin buttons for a tin sheriff's deputy badge, and use it as an excuse to throw your weight around.

2) You're thin-skinned, and react violently when your self-proclaimed authority is challenged.

3) You're unable, unwilling, and/or too lazy to bother actually justifying your expressions of power in relation to actual policy, guidelines, practice, project goals, or even common sense, falling back automatically to pounding the table with "I AM THE LAW!" and "RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH!".

4) You haven't the slightest compunction about using your admin button for pettiness and vindictiveness, even if you have to bend or break actual policy, guidelines, practice, project goals, or even common sense, as most recently evidenced by your sucking up to someone who posted actual threats of violence.

I'd say I get it just fine. I'd say a little exercise of common sense on your part would do you good. --Calton | Talk 20:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Page Protection

Can you comment and respond to my questions on you protecting Seth MacFarlene Ctjf83Talk 04:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why you didn't just block Randomface123 when he was the antagonizer, by deleting sourced and adding unsourced info. Ctjf83Talk 22:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Because he's a new user and doesn't know how we work here. Education is better than blocks for users who are here to improve the encyclopedia. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but did you delete the edits made by User:Randomface123 to his/her own user page as vandalism? Ctjf83Talk 01:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you can't see the deleted revisions, but the vandalism was from Catcom.fox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It was nothing to do with Randomface. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I don't know why we can't see deleted edits...it would have avoided this convo! Ctjf83Talk 01:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, only admins can see them ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Boston/HoS

Yes, I recreated HoS -- good practice, correct? (I'm guessing you're fixing the history on my talk page or whatever and that's why it just became a red link?) - BOSTON (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - we've had problems over the past few days with a vandal creating accounts that have been renamed, so I was just checking it was you. I fixed the talk page move problem - it's beeter doing it properly than a cut and paste. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Very good. Thanks for your assistance with the change. My old user name -- although it has a pedigree dating back to 1995 -- might create the wrong first impression here. - BOSTON (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)