User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite/archive13

Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 45	5 November 2007	About the Signpost

Wikimedia avoids liability in French lawsuit	WikiWorld comic: "Fall Out Boy"
News and notes: Grant money, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Lists of basic topics
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 3, Issue 46	12 November 2007	About the Signpost

Unregistered page creation remains on hold so far	WikiWorld comic: "Exploding whale"
News and notes: Fundraiser, elections galore, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Missing encyclopedic articles	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 08:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers!

Hey Ryan, I owe you a huge thank you for taking the time to write up a really flattering nomination for my RfA. I won't disappoint! I'm also looking forward to "graduating" from your admin school I've been hearing about :) Spellcast 21:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Thank you for your reply to my questions about civility. Now I'd like to ask you a favor, and this time it's about my own civility. As humans, we are all imperfect and may not see our own imperfections as clearly as other do. For context, please see this comment [1] by one user to another. That uncivil comment prompted this comment [2] by me to the recipient of the first comment. Please give me your honest opinion as to whether my comment was uncivil. After you form your opinion you might read this.[3]

Let me be clear: I ask this only for the purpose of improving my own behavior. I will not quote your opinion to anyone else. I'm NOT looking for "defense witnesses". I'm just looking for an independent 3rd party opinion. I'm also making this same request to a second person.

P.S. Given that everything in Wikipedia is visible to everyone, probably hundreds of people will become aware of something that perhaps I don't really want to publicize. So be it. That might have the side effect of spreading more awareness about civility. Sbowers3 03:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Closing that thread on WP:ANI

Thanks for that, but you make it seem as if I started the thread. That's wrong. Check the page history.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What was that for? Just out of interest... :-) Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought you started the thread, but it was simply a request to look into community sanctions against you which is looking increasing like a good idea now. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Note that nobody other than the thread-starter suggested or endorsed or consensused with the idea of giving me community sanctions; as my full summary says, I genuinely don't see where I've gone wrong.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What you've done is trolled the community over something that no-one else has any idea why you want to do it. If you don't want to use your main accout, you could have stopped using it. Now it looks like you've lost your right to have an alternate account, and your main account is close to being blocked for disruption leaving you without any option but to stop editing. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

IRC

ping me. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

:-) I can't I'm affraid, I'm in uni and can't get on IRC - I certainly will do later. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, two diff things to toss around.I'm off work today, I can't IRC at work. So I can today. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Notification per COI

please see: [4] per other mentor having a clear COI on the matter [5]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I realise it's a pain but, believe me, I have looked high and low for sources to establish the individual episode notability. The cabal at WP:TV-REVIEW began discussions/dogma a few months ago at Talk:List of Friends episodes and I've put forward several reasons why many articles should remain, which they have argued against. Nobody else has bothered to join in the discussion and nobody else has bothered to add any additional sources to the episode articles so I've chosen to redirect most of them myself rather than have them do it. If you think my edits (or "sole-person-trying-to-establish-notability-for-Friends-episode-articles-that-have-reliable-published-sources" as I like to call myself) are disruptive then by all means block me, ban me or start an RFC because now you've stuck me between a rock and a hard place. Brad 21:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, for this you'll need wider discussion so take it to AfD - a mass redirect of these relatively high profile articles is going to need some definite consensus. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

AFD would be my ideal way to settle this "boo-hoo, anything and everything related to fiction on Wikipedia is 'fancruft' so anyone interested in such things should piss off and make their own wikia" rubbish but, not to be (too) juvenile, tell User:Eusebeus to take it to AFD. Brad 21:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and as for "high profile" -- if they were that then people would have joined in the discussion and tried to improve the articles. Brad 21:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If there's a problem with quality of articles, fix them - don't redirect them. The discussion you highlight is not the most high profile place so it's highly likely that people will miss the discussion. I'm not too concerned if they get AfD'd or not, just if you want to redirect them, it's a course of action you should seriously consider. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Fix them"? I really don't believe what I'm reading here. Brad 21:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah fix them - I've got no interest in the articles. If you do, then sort them out rather than basically deleting their contents. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

i happen to know about the character how is that vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.108.240 (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

will u be REVERTING the pages I edited to the changes I made like mother, father, relationships (Sean Donely!!!!!? I happen to know A LOT about GH.

been watching GH since almost 30 years, and know of people who have worked and continue to work on the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.108.240 (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

My power flickered and my comp restarted. When I got back, everyone was gone, lol. Nice to see you there, don't be a stranger! Ariel♥Gold 23:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That block

"14 fortnights" ... Ok I know you were just doubling CSCWEM's time... but it's funny. Say it out loud a few times. Maybe not as funny as "pants" but it's up there. ++Lar: t/c 05:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, well you've got to make the 'pedia a little less boring now an again! Take care, Ryan Postlethwaite 11:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Mediation wiki

No, thank you, I am withdrawing from the mediation regarding the pro-pedophilia article. I am highly disappointed that the article has been protected for so long. Protected to a version that is highly POV. Wikipedia advertises itself as neutral, but any article concerning pedophilia and you'll clearly see bias. Wikipedia is not neutral and only people who want to put pedophilia in the most negative spotlight possible have a say. Everyone else is blocked or finds themselves in a revert war with SqueakBox. A user that I strongly believe holds a bias against pedophilia and administrators have allowed him to monopolize articles on pedophilia. I'm finished with wikipedia. Fighting for Justice 07:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I hold no bias against pedophilia while working on wikipedia, I am only interested in neutrality but if you, Fighting, don't want to continue with mediation does this mean that, like Jeeny, you wont be participating further in the pedophilia articles? Or do you want to continue editing pro-pedophilia activism and re-insert the comment of known socks of banned users which have been removed from the talk page as if the latter is the case I have concerns about your abandoning mediation. Thanks, SqueakBox 08:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll believe you are a neutral editor, the day I see a neutral edit from you. If you care about neutrality you would see the bias in the following introduction of the pro-pedophile article. Pro-pedophile activism or Pro-paedophile activism encompasses pro-pedophile organizations and activists that argue for certain changes of criminal laws and cultural response in order to allow pedophiles to sexually abuse. When you are neutral you refrain from using emotion evoking words like abuse. Fighting for Justice 09:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree, all my edits are based on neutrality in all the articles I edit, and I often edit bios and other articles precisely to promote NPOV where it is lacking. I don't see abuse as a weasel word. And this fundamental disagreement about what neutrality is is why I hope you will stay with the mediation. Thanks, SqueakBox 09:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a weasel word. The word is emotive. That is contrary to neutrality. I don't need mediation to decide what neutrality means. I know the definition of the word and neutrality is not occurring in the pedophile articles. I'm leaving mediation because I truly feel it will resolve nothing. There will be more of the same edit wars and a huge waste of time. Besides that, I believe some administrators are on your side and are willing to do your bidding. Fighting for Justice 09:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Fighting for Justice, I agree that it would be best if you stayed with both Wikipedia and the mediation process. While I too have my concerns over a number of blocks leveled against editors involved in the editing of PAW articles, the only way I see of bringing neutrality back into articles such as the one on pro-pedophile activism is if all the parties involved civilly discuss their concerns and strive to reach some kind of consensus. I do think PAW articles can be improved and brought closer to NPOV, and the official mediation process currently underway is a very effective means towards that end. It would be a detriment to the project if you were to leave now, seeing as best progress comes from the clash of all reasonably argued positions. I have seen the quality contributions you have made to Wikipedia, and really hope you will reconsider your decision to depart. Exactly because there has been a great deal of controversy and biased editing do we need editors like you on-board. ~ Homologeo 09:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not planning to leave wikipedia entirely, I still plan to edit articles and fix vandalism. It's just that the articles won't be about pedophilia. There is an anti-pedophilia crusade going on here, and the article and it's misrepresentations left protected have ruined my perception of wikipedia. It is not neutral and only what is popular is allowed in articles. Fighting for Justice 09:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I do hope you reconsider Fighting for Justice. Mediation is an attempt to help all parties involved in a dispute come to a reasonable compromise. If you do not participate in the mediation, then you are saying that the decisions made on the articles are going to be taken away from you and left in other users hands. If you truly want to withdraw from the mediation, then there isn't much anyone can do. Could you clarify for me if you still intend to edit the article? Mediation may not be viable for anyone if you still plan to. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I could certainly continue to edit the article, but what's the point? Squeakbox will revert me and reinstate an edit that he endorses. You can not win with him, only until you see things his way will you win with him. I will enter mediation as soon as Squeakbox is banned from editing the pro-pedophilia article. He is not a neutral no matter how much claims to be. In July, he nominated the article for deletion. What does that tell me? It tells me he didn't want the article around, so why should we trust him that he will edit the article neutrally? He wanted the article gone. Anybody that tries to infuse a neutral edit he sabotages it. He accuses them of being sock puppets and a part of the pro-pedophile agenda. The agenda that only he can spot. It is ridiculous and I am tired of trying to reason with him. Fighting for Justice 18:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well Squeakbox isn't going to get banned from editing the article, I'll tell you that right away. You obviously both have very different opinions on the article, and that doesn't mean that either of you are incorrect, simply different schools of thought. This is where mediation can help. If you are all willing to accept compromises then a neutral editing environment can be established and the article can be edited to reflect the consensus of all involved. If may be worth giving it a try, even if you wish to pull out of the mediation at a later date. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh I know he won't be blocked. Only those who want to see the article neutral are blocked. I've found out months ago there isn't any true justice in wikipedia. I know he has administrators on his side, that's why he's permitted to act the way he does. But I'll tell you what. I'll re-enter this mediation process and see where it goes. Fighting for Justice 18:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pleased to hear that. Send me an email and I'll get you those log in details. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

::::::I can't seem to enter the email I registered with to get in here. I'm told it doesn't exist. Can you send me an email to a different address? helterskelter20@hotmail.com I think that is the only email I can communicate with you. Fighting for Justice 19:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

While disagreeing with Fighting's comments concerning me having admins on my side (it just isn't true) I am pleased Fighting has agreed to return to mediation. I don't think we should be trying to stop any legitimate editor (ie not a sock of a banned user or any sock) from editing the article and I would rather see Fighting continue editing while engaging in mediation rather than doing neither. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, can you give us any further information on how far we are in regards to Fighting for Justice's opening statement? Have you sent him a login yet? Has he accessed his account yet? Sorry if I put a lot of pressure on you (and fighting), but I just want to get under way. Martijn Hoekstra 14:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I've sent ffj his login details a few days ago, he emailed me yesterday with an opening statement and I've requested that he adds it directly himself onto the MedCom wiki page. Hopefully we will be ready to start very soon. Sorry it's taking so long. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

PR Mentorship

Are you still mentoring user:PalestineRemembered? I am concerned about edits like this, where a well known historian is being described by PR as being "right out there in the lunatic fringe", while in the same breath, an acknowledged hate-site's antisemitic smear of a Canadian Jewish leader is being defended by PR as "carefully fact-based and relatively restrained". This is not a one-off occurence. PR has already been asked by reasonable editors to find more neutral ways to describe Scheteman - see this as one exmaple. Isarig 17:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Degree

Ryan; further to my recent e-mail, please accept my most heartfelt congratulations on obtaining your BSc degree. And the very best of luck to you in your further studies. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

IP vandal on my talk

Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen 00:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No probs. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Nu skool breaks

I'm not sure if undoing you again would constitute a wheel war but before you deleted the article I was reverting it to a stable version from October 1st. The article was vandalised and the history wasn't looked at when it was nominated for speedy deletion, I've been trying to rectify that. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course not, I apologize profusely for deleting it again - I was just on a CSD run and presumed the user had simply recreated the article. Thanks for catching it and sorry for any inconvenience. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin three days and nearly got into a wheel war, I'm not off to a good start. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Nu skool breaks

I did not mean to engage in a wheel war with you, but I have speedy undeleted an article you have deleted, Nu skool breaks. The version you deleted indeed qualified for A1, but it was the result of vandalism. While you were in the process of deleting the article, another user had restored the pre-vandalism version. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah sorry Aecis, I was on a mission to get CSD down to nothing and made a big mistake. Thanks to you and Lid (see above) for fixing my error (should consider going to bed!). Ryan Postlethwaite 00:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Privatemusings

As the block was for abusive sockpuppetry, Privatemusings expressed that he no longer wished to edit using his main account; as such, the blocks between the two were swapped. Two other admins have agreed over at AN/I, and another one did the block of the main account... does it really make a difference which account is used? east.718 at 02:20, 11/16/2007

A lot of people on AN/I want PM blocked from all accounts and there's a fairly strong consensus for an indef block all round. This has got to the point of being more than sockpuppetry. I'm not sure I saw David Gerrerd support the unblock and he was the blocking admin. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The editor should be allowed to use one account, lets not see voices stifled as that will solely damage the project. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

David Gerard blocked every account except for the main one, this indicates that he was just whacking socks instead of the person behind them. It shouldn't matter which account he commits to. Could you please copy future replies to my talk page, you got lucky that I stumbled across here again. east.718 at 02:34, 11/16/2007

Thanks!

Howdy Ryan, thanks for the nomination and many kind words of support in my request for adminship. I greatly appreciate your vote of confidence. By all means, feel free to check in on my work to come and your offer of help is greatly appreciated. I may indeed come knocking if I can't figure something out. Thanks again,

--TeaDrinker 06:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Might want to semi-pp Guy's page

I just noticed he is getting an extra dose of harassment today. I think it might be appropriate. spryde | talk 18:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to for a while but the database has been locked, it's gone through not though. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying to undo the damage as well. Any clue why the lag is happening more than usual lately? spryde | talk 18:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well ususally it's because someone with a lot of edits has been renamed, but I think there's a problem with the wikimedia servers this time as the data base was locked as well and it seemed like a major problem. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you think its likely all these peolpe blanking JzG's page are the same person? -- Simply south (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Look at the account creation log for accounts around 20:30 on the 9th. The all seem to be there. spryde | talk 18:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No question about it, they're the same. Who ever it is obviously created a lot of accounts on 9 November so they would be autoconfirmed to avoid the sprotection, they must have a lot of IP's at their disposable as I'm autoblocking every IP. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

How about full until we can get this sorted? Drastic but it will temporarily solve this. spryde | talk 18:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it's a talk page we can't do that. Just let them have their fun. revert, block and ignore. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Understood. I am glad my friday is a light day. :) spryde | talk 18:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Changed mind

... well task (for it!) <G>. Can you please undelete this and Ping me when done. I figured out a good use for the mnemonic, and recreating a recently deleted page could cause comment... so to speak. Thanks, //FrankB 02:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Palo Verde High School

Recently, you deleted a section on activities listed for palo verde high school which had very useful links to their respective pages. I reverted this as I do not understand why you would want to actually delete factual information.

It was unsourced, just a see of external links and had no claim of notability in the section. I've reverted you. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If I describe each organization and give information about them and then source it with the page at the school is that fine?

No it's not because you haven't made any claim of notability for them. We don't need external links to each departments links - it's classed as spam - the whole section is non notable and shouldn't be on the page. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm not going around thanking all my RfA participants (although it wouldn't take long!) but I have to make an exception in your case for your speedy, generous and very supportive first comment, which set the ball rolling very well and set the tone for the encouraging and uneventful RfA that followed. I'll take myself through exercises in your new admin school when I get a moment (I've been looking there for reference already). Thanks again. Bencherlite^Talk 08:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thx spam

Thank you, Ryan Postlethwaite, for supporting my RfB, which I withdrew at a final tally of (33/12/1). I failed to overcome the not unforeseeable opposition, but I am humbled by some extremely supportive, encouraging words I could read. In order to honor your trust, I once again vow to continue working and improving. Please contact me should you have any advice or recommendation to give. Or, should you need assistance. I am, as will always be, at your service. Again, please accept my most sincere gratitude. Best regards, Húsönd 03:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, thank you so much for your prompt comment on my talk page shortly after my withdrawal. I'm not discouraged, ahead is the way. :-) Best regards, Húsönd 03:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Block of an IP address

Hey Ryan, you may wish to unblock the reblock this IP address, as you blocked it for two yeard as an open prooxy, but becauses 2 years wasn't specified - it may not blocked. —Qst 13:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) —Qst 13:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just 24?

You my fine sir are far too kind! :P KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Kind is my middle name KOS - Everyone should know that by now! :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 12:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, Ryan "Kindness" Postlethwaite, that actually has a nice ring to it. In fact that's the best name since Ringo Star. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 07:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

My RFA (Random832)

Thank you, Ryan Postlethwaite, for participating in my RFA, which passed 35/1/0. I look forward to helping out. If you have any concerns or suggestions/advice, my talk page is always open.—Random832 14:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Brown

82.12.8.89 has vandalized Gordon Brown again. Matthardingu (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for letting me know, I've blocked them for 24 hours. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 47	19 November 2007	About the Signpost

An interview with Florence Devouard	Author borrows from Wikipedia article without attribution
WikiWorld comic: "Raining animals"	News and notes: Page patrolling, ArbCom age requirement, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: History
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) 10:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Back - Thanks to people like you

It was pointy, petulant and offensive to the community for me to "retire" in a fit of pique over the Lara thing. I'm going to work hard to be co-operative with her, and to ensure I make nothing against her that could be seen as an attack. We're communicating via e-mail. I just want to send you a particular note thanking you for your support Ryan. It really means a lot to me. Cheers matey. Pedro :  Chat  12:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem Pedro, I was just standing up for what is right. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I know. And that's why I respect you. It wouldn't have mattered if it was me or any other editor, you do the right thing as you see it. I can only learn from your approach at times Ryan. Your judgement sets an example to many others. Very best. Pedro :  Chat  16:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You're being discussed

User:PalestineRemembered has opened a thread discussing you at ANI. It doesn't appear that he's notified you, but my apologies for double notification if he did drop you a note elsewhere. Natalie (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Natalie, I've responded on AN/I. As I said there, I wish he'd attempted to discuss it with me here first... Ryan Postlethwaite 19:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In your response there, you persisted in using language like "As your mentor" when his entire complaint was that you were saying you are his mentor when he believes you are not. I do trust that you're being truthful / acting in good faith, but that was perhaps not the best way to move discussion forward. When someone who you think you are mentoring says that you're "insisting [you're] his mentor (as well? instead?)" there's clearly been a failure to communicate somewhere along the line, and getting everyone on the same page should be a priority. —Random832 14:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

In case you weren't aware, it was decided on AN/I a few weeks back that I was his mentor (along with Kendrick7 to steer him in day to day editing), so although he may choose not to except this, it is unfortunate that he will have to whether he likes it or not. Discussion will only move forward if he co-operates, as there's a lot of people suggesting this is a last chance for him. If this means it has to be drilled into him that I am his mentor, then so be it. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't following it closely, but I got the impression from what I've seen before that he believes the consensus was to allow him to choose his own mentor, and I don't know where to find the original discussion. that said, his edits do seem to be sourced, and his opponents are claiming they're not - if POV is really the issue, why isn't the other side accusing him of POV editing instead of attacking his sourcing?—Random832 14:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I'll tell you now he wasn't allowed to choose his own mentor - that generally doesn't happen with community enforced mentorship. This is the discussion where it was decided I was his mentor. I'm suggesting that PR is reverting articles to put them to the way he would like them (which is his own point of view). This includes sourcing of articles, and dubious sources being used to claim his points. I don't think each individual edit is a major problem, but when they mount up the behaviour begins to get quite disruptive. A mentor has to pick up on edits which are problematic, and given the history of PR, it's important that everything that could be seen as disruptive editing is discussed with him so he can understand why. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK - I'll go to his talk page with a link to that thread, in case he missed it or didn't read it thoroughly. I will say, with regards to his claim that CSN was "discredited": well, it wouldn't have been closed if there weren't significant problems with that process at that location, and that does, to some extent, call decisions made there into question.—Random832 15:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

CSN doesn't really have anything to do with it, as this was enforced an AN/I proving there was still a need for mentorhship, but all decisions made there are still standing. It might be worth explaining to him that I am his mentor, although I can assure you he is already fully aware. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I linked him to that AN thread anyway - that discussion closed with an open question on who would be his secondary mentor - did you go with Kendrick7 or someone else?—Random832 15:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah Kendrick7 is going to be his secondary mentor, my concern with this is that he's one PR's proponents in editing and may be quite soft when it comes to dicussing disruptive editing, that's my job is in the duo, to get involved if Kendrick has failed to relay the facts. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For being with us for so long, and for fighting for this cause for years to come. Come, celebrate, raise a blass Marlith T/C 02:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Seconded! Keep up the great work! Btw, you're used as an example here. I'm jealous! *Cremepuff222* 02:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks both, I noticed that about month ago cremepuff222 - It's all good being famous! :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 03:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Better than being the example here, anyway! Bencherlite^Talk 14:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, couldn't resist a bit of fame when creating the viewing deleted images page - hell, at least someone bothered to create a page on me! Ryan Postlethwaite 14:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably one of your sockpuppets, so you could show off... Bencherlite^Talk 14:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?

   Well, I've been a member of wikipedia since October 2006, I became an administrator in March 2007, I'm currently a member of the mediation committee and I'm also an OTRS volunteer.

2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

   I guess the reason why I want to be on the arbitration committee is because I feel I can make a difference. I've enjoyed every minute I've been here and want to give even more to the project. I particularly enjoy taking part in dispute resolution procedures, and I think I act in a neutral manner with all parties involved. At all times I try to be firm, but fair and offer ways to solve disputes without having to move to more severe dispute resolution measures.

3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

   I've never been a named party in an arbitration case, but I've helped in a number of the workshop pages for cases which I'm not involved in. For the Betacommand case, I submitted evidence about innappropriate username blocks and I've also submitted principles, findings of fact and remedies which the current arbitrators have used in their final decision for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. I also proposed the dismissal of the PalestineRemembered case which the arbitrators adapted.

4. In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

   Generally speaking, I think the committee have made the right decisions in most of the cases that they have worked on. I'd like to draw attention in particular to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jeffrey_O._Gustafson. By the end of the case, there were a lot of people calling for Jeffrey_O._Gustafson to be desysopped, but the committee instead used their judgement and only suspended his adminship for 30 days. Jeffrey recognises that this short suspension has made him see things in a different light and he has become much better at communication since. I was a little disapointed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 - there's been a lot of disruption on these pages coming in multiple forms, but the scope of the decision only allows sanctions to be placed against editors that edit war with incivility. I don't believe it fully recognises that the edit warring on these pages itself is extremely serious and given the previous case didn't solve the dispute, a harsher line should probably have been taken by the committee.

5. Why do you think users should vote for you?

   I think I'm trusted, accessible and have the knowledge and experience in dispute resolution to handle arbitration committee cases well. I also believe that I'm extremely open to discussing concerns which I believe is essential for the committee to remain in touch with the community. I try and be firm but fair in all disputes I mediate or get involved in, which is the way in which any arbitratot should act.

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 04:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan-2

Hi Ryan! Ill be grateful if you also recheck if the adding of my name to the limitations was justified as we never describe what means "disruptively edit warring" in my case. Thanks in advance!Andranikpasha (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andranikpasha, I'm going to take a look at all the names in the case per the clarification we've had from Kiril and look to see which ones should be, and which ones shouldn't be included under the supervised editing. What I'm looking for is users that have edit warred with incivility - they should be on the list, just edit warring shouldn't be. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Note

I want to clarify my block history. All are related with my conflicts with Tajik. In addition, all are on Nomadic Empires related articles. The list of the articles are here [6]. As you see, none of them is related with the Az-Ar case. In my edit hsitory, the only exception is Shucha. There i added a new section on "Cultural life", quotations and references. I already stated how i came to that page. It's not fair to punish me with my previous block history (the last one dated 1 April 2007, 8 months ago). Please, review my situation again. I shall provide more detailed explanation if necessary. Regards. E104421 (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you clarify by what you ment by this "I believe that he has been disruptively edit warring despite previous warnings"[7]. Thanks. VartanM (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that you have edit warred despite being given final warnings not to, hence why I placed you under supervised editing. As I said, if you disagree, please take it to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, the arbitration case talk page is not the place to discuss this. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't really post anything, unless you clarify what you mean by "disruptively edit warring" Is it only Shusha? Or did I disrupt other articles. --VartanM (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I'm glad its over. Happy Thanksgiving. VartanM (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

E104421

I didn't notice that civility had to be taken into account as well. I have removed E104421. Thanks for letting me know. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers NishKid64, I wasn't aware either so I've had to remove just about every name I added there. Take care buddy, Ryan Postlethwaite 20:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Blockhammer

Good looking out, Mr. Postlethwaite :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Aynabend (talk · contribs)

Hi there Tariqabjotu, hope you're well. I've just been taking a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#List of users placed under supervision and see you placed Aynabend under supervised editing. I've added a few users recently for edit warring on pages related to the page, but Kirill clarified that for an editor to be placed under supervision, there must be incivility with the edit warring, but I can't see any incivility coming from Anyabend. Could you look at removing him please? I've just removed quite a few of the users I placed under supervision for the same reason. Cheers and take care, Ryan Postlethwaite 20:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Does being a party to one of the Armenia-Azerbaijan cases have any bearing on whether a user can have supervised editing applied to him/her? I notice being a party to the first case was given as a reason for some of the editors to be put on supervision. -- tariqabjotu 22:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I can take from it, the editors placed under restrictions in the first case were automatically put under supervised editing, but if they were a party of the second, they weren't automatically put on it. To be added to the case there should be disruptive editing (edit warring) with marked incivility. I think a lot of us were under the impression that edit warring alone was enough to put someone under the supervision remedy but Kirill has clarified otherwise. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Coaching

Hi Ryan. I just wanted to bring up that I finished my other assignment over a week ago, just in case you missed it. Cheers! J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 22:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You, blocking people???

I noticed you on AN/I mentioning blocking Diaboli So you made admin and I missed your RfA. Bugger. And likewise arse. Very belated and deeply meant congratulations, Ryan!

Cheers, Tonywalton  | Talk 22:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah Tony - for some reason they let me into the cabal! I actually think I went for it about a month after you left (March if I recall). Thanks for the late congrats, might not have been without your great help when I first started.... Ryan Postlethwaite 23:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

But surely there is no cabal ;-) Tonywalton  | Talk 23:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no Cabal? Hell, I should have left after all. That's why I'm here ...... :) Pedro :  Chat  23:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Pedro, you are the cabal! Ryan Postlethwaite 23:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

They all say that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonywalton (talk • contribs) 00:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The NAS

Glad to see that the links to it are increasing! :) Acalamari 02:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I was just looking at that! I try and give as many new admins the link to it as I can, but I'm normally beaten to it by you - thanks a lot for plugging it for me, it seems like a great success. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I try to give it to as many new admins as possible, even if they already have a link. :) I keep telling new admins who thank me for the link that I wished the school had existed when I first became an admin; it would have been very useful, and the school will cut down on mistakes made by new (and even experienced) admins. If it's not you or I giving the link, someone else does it for us. :) Sometimes I use this to give both the link and the shirt to new admins. Again, thank you for your hard work in creating the school. Acalamari 03:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Andranikpasha

Hi Ryan. I don’t think User:Andranikpasha should be relived of his parole, as he was actually permanently banned from Wikipedia and allowed to return only subject to parole and mentorship. --Grandmaster (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to remind you of this discussion at WP:ANI: [8], where the indef blocked was discussed. It was agreed to lift the block subject to parole and mentorship. Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 06:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Ryan. Andranikpasha's original block was a mistake (it was indefinite, not permanent). The reasons sited were "time wasting" and "single purpose account," none of which are even remotely close to reality, if you look at his edits. Andranik makes valuable edits on variety of articles. He was a new user, and he needed a guidance from a fellow editor, which in this case was chosen User:VartanM, and the mentorship has worked just fine. He always participates in discussions, is ready to try mediation on debates (again, looking at his edit history). He has never been uncivil--in fact, he is civil to a fault. I don't think there is sufficient basis to place him under ban. Thanks.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 06:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the other blocking admin should be consulted as well. I kind of see no improvement other than less edit warring due to parole limitation. Grandmaster (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

When I placed him under supervised editing, I was under the impression the remedy was for edit warring or incivility. I saw edit warring, and after a long hard look at his contributions yesterday, I see no incivility coming from his account so per the clarification from Kirill, there is no justification for putting him under the supervised editing for the case. If you see my comment at WP:RFArb, you will see that I have deep concerns about this personally, but unless the arbitrators clarify further, then taking him off the supervised editing list was the only thing that could be done. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you about the arbcom ruling, but Andranikpasha is different from other users, because unlike others he was banned indefinitely for massive disruption and allowed to return only subject to parole and mentorship. I think this aspect should also be considered. But now Andranikpasha is free to do what he was doing before the parole, see this, a revert of a legitimate edit with no discussion: [9] Grandmaster (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, what you're writing here sorry but not true and you know why. At first, I wasnt banned but blocked (Do you remember how you were trying to prove to the admin who later blocked me that Im a sockpuppet, and I was unblocked after this admin was informed that im not "a sock of... Artaxiad", a story by you, attacking me the newbie). And what's the most important, I was blocked after few hours at the same day you protested that my editions should be entered under Arbcom enforcement and I was entered under 1RR (as we realize now) by a not justified decision. While I was protesting this decision askin I never made any uncivil editwarrings I was blocked for the time wasting, possible sockpuppetry etc.. So whats the reason to wikistalk me everywhere again and again? All editions Im doing is trying to keep the Wiki rules. Im working according to them, isnt it? Andranikpasha (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The only reason Andranik was placed under indefinite ban was because he was accused by Grandmaster to be a sock of another banned user. One of the admins took the bait, fortunately another didn't. Taking it into consideration would amount to rewarding Grandmaster's harrassment of Andranik.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're around...

Would you please take a look at this? I'm concerned about WP:BLP issues, but it also doesn't seem to really seem to be organized in any encyclopedic way, but I'm at a loss as to what to do with it. Could you give me input pretty please? Ariel♥Gold 13:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

And also this if you have time? Does A7 cover magazines? Does a magazine fall into the category of a company? (Yes, I'm doing NPP lol) Ariel♥Gold 13:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion Hakin9 fails to make any claim of notability, so can be tagged for A7 speedy deletion (I'll let you do the honours!) - Magazines and other publications can come under the same criteria as the people that published them. Not sure about Gay Backlash, it might be one of those ones to take to AfD, let me have another look though because I'm not sure. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you have time, could you work on the Gay Backlash article? I think we could possibly squeeze and article out of it. I've got quite a good source of the events which has chronological news articles about the story. I'd suggest cutting it down and not revealing any names, so talk about the government rather than the prime minister. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hakin9 was {{prod}}ed by someone, so I'll see how that goes. And I will work on the other article when I wake up, okay? I was just about to go off to sleep, but checked in with you first. That source is good, and that probably means more sources can be found. While I really have zero knowledge about the subject, I guess it will be a learning experience for me, lol. I'll clean it up tomorrow. Have a spiffily wonderful night, my dear Ryan! Ariel♥Gold 18:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

A user script

I came across User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Rollback.js. Is this an admin or non-admin user script? What browser does it need? I'm asking about this script because I've been trying to find a good "revert" script for my alternate account, but all the scripts seem to work with Firefox only. Currently, my alternate account uses what appears to be a very simple revert script. Acalamari 22:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Acalamari, I don't actually use Rollback.js per se, I basically use DerHexers monobook for my rollback script. I'll fill you in about it in an email as soon as I've posted this. It only works on firefox - have you considered changing to firefox? I used ie up until about two weeks ago then thought I'd try out firefox and I've got to say, it's far far better for editing wikipedia with. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the info. Regarding Firefox, I have it installed on my computer, but the font and text looks awful for some reason, and it's hard to look at after a short amount of time. I use IE7 because it looks a lot clearer. However, since most user scripts don't work with IE, I have an empty monobook as a result. It's a shame too, because some user scripts are very good from what I've heard. Acalamari 23:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Gracenotes/amelvand.js uses admin rollback (it will use normal rollback if you're not an admin) and it works on IE. It takes some time to get used to, but it's really a nice script. *Cremepuff222* 00:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

A request

Hey Ryan, could you restore my user page now? I would appreciate it, that AfD ended awhile ago, just wanted to make sure things were quiet. Hope you had a Happy Thanksgiving. IvoShandor (talk) 06:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi IvoShandor, sorry I was asleep. I see WJBscribe has restored your userpage for you. It's good to know that it looks like you're staying - I hope you're happy about things again. Unfortunately, we don't celebrate thanksgiving in the UK :-(, but I hope you had a good one. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Didn't realize you were from the UK, apologies, I don't look too closely at user pages in general. Well, late Happy Bonfire Night, or something. :) IvoShandor (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Mentorship

I don't wish to rake over too much old history, since real lessons may have been learned and applied from the case that bears my name, PalestineRemembered.

However, I rather wish you'd not refer to "my" case (twice now) as evidence of your useful contributions - your proposal for dismissal of the case was apparently calculated to deprive me of remedy and leave me smeared as "taking my views from the Holocaust Deniers". You announced "This isn't about getting an appology - arbitration isn't here for that" and argued against admonishment of my accuser. You posted to my TalkPage "stop your persistent trolling over your block" - and snapped at the editor who objected. All this despite the transparent nonsense and mendacity of the allegation against me.

Other experienced editors have suggested I was being a bit unreasonable to go to AN/I over what I suspected were specious objections to perfectly proper edits. I should really come to your TalkPage and express my concerns here first/instead. (Goodness knows why, everyone else has gone straight to notice boards). So (on top of my irritation expressed above) I've come to your TalkPage to have a word. Yet according to you here a perma-block of me was inevitable as soon as you declared yourself my mentor. It would have been (and had been) perfectly possible to have involved many real experienced mediators/mentors in the community, were it not for this kind of harassment of them being carried out. That behaviour predates the often brutal harassment of my mentors so well documented elsewhere. It is galling to hear that "mentorship has failed" - when mentorship was working really rather well. It was cynically torpedoed by others in order to declare mentorship a failure and silence good, literate, careful editors. PR^talk 16:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem a little misunderstood about what arbitration is for. It's wasn't for you to get an appology from Jayjg, it was to ascertain whether you should be allowed to edit here or not. In the end, the community decided you should be able to edit, so no arbitration case was needed, and you were unblocked - that's why the case was dropped. This edit of mine was not suggesting that every user that comes for mentorship off me would get an indef block, simply that the last two editors at that point who I was going to mentor, had infact been indef blocked before I had chance to start. If I may ask, what do you feel is wrong with my remarks of concern on your page? It is my belief that the edits I showed you were attempting to push your own point of view, but I'm more than happy to discuss it if you don't feel they were. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to have said it in one - the filthiest allegations against selected editors can be made on the very flimsiest of evidence, but personal integrity doesn't come into the matter and the ArbCom doesn't and wouldn't concern itself with what is going on. I am pleased to say, I've developed a somewhat better regard for top management of the project since May 2007, when this shocking affair occured. Though I'm still a bit worried about the deliberations of the ArbCom itself. I never normally participate, but I attempted to impede this rail-roading. Note the flimsiness of the evidence against the subject. Note how, just as in each of my cases, anyone daring to come "to the defense" of the accused will be personally vilified (or threatened in this case). Dozens of good people have come to my defense over the 10? or so "discplinaries" that have been taken out against me in the 6 months since May. All those people have now been silenced by the outrageous treatment they've been subject to, and the certain knowledge that PalestineRemembered is not going to be around much longer. Most outrageously of all, even "Advocates" and "Mentors" are considered prime targets for unpleasantness. (All of this is documented in various places, here is one place to start. A particularily shocking example is explained here). It is to the great credit of editors that so many volunteered to put their own participation on the line for me - but McCarthyite targetting has simply accelerated and been perfected since then. Experienced editors will never again leave themselves as exposed as they did in the summer of 2007, and of course inexperienced editors will be bull-dozed without a trace.
• Lets look at this red-line you've set out for me - that adding the words of an Israeli newspaper and a pro-Israel US Magazine (Time) to Operation Defensive Shield is me "pushing your own point of view regarding Ariel Sharon." (The "official Israel explanation" is already in the article - I'm not offering the Palestinian version, just a different Israeli version). Sharon is known for sure to have threatened to "hit and hurt" the Palestinians shortly before he launched what many RSs called "indiscriminate attacks" - that cannot be mentioned. Time Magazine's direct linkage of the threat to the action cannot be mentioned. The Israeli newspaper which states that there was "a decision made to vandalize the civic, administrative, cultural infrastructure developed by Palestinian society" (and the results of it) cannot be mentioned. Anything that makes Ariel Sharon appear to have set out to attack civilians cannot be mentioned - and this, despite the fact that the US wanted Sharon brought to account for attacking civilians in 1953 (69 dead) and a Knesset Committee criticised him for setting it up in Beirut (1982 - several thousand dead). If I can lower myself to a tiny bit of original research and soap-boxing, Sharon's entire career is based on attacking civilians. But I may not cross this red-line - and I've not even quoted a Palestinian, I've never yet made an effort to get the "Palestinian version" into the article!
• What other red-lines are there? I first faced a perma-block for adding evidence that Israel glorified the terrorist killers of Lord Moynes in 1944 - was that a red-line? It would be strange indeed if that was the case, since the well-known truth is now in the article Zionist political violence. At the same place, it's now even possible that the ludicrously POV "In [Feb] 1944, after the defeat of the Nazis was assured" could, finally, be overturned. But I think it unlikely, with this kind of thing going on. There's a 'new?' editor now trying to improve that article, you can see how frustrated he's getting faced with such unpleasant bare-faced denial. The BBC article referenced by the denier says nothing about the defeat of the Nazis having been assured - just another time-wasting and dishonest tactic that admins would be stamping out if they didn't know the ropes. (As before, I've refering to an incident where I've had almost no interaction with the participants, I'm little more than an observer to that particular tiff).
• Obviously, I have a lot more to say - but having gone this far, I now need you to answer two questions - "What would happen to me if I tried to write in the Palestinian version of what they call the Jenin Massacre?" (or alternatively, "What would happen to me if I quoted Palestinians of 2002 on the subject?") and "Is there any chance of such NPOV "balancing" material staying in the article?". As a top administrator and potential ArbCom member, after all, your integrity and opinions are going to influence the project for years to come. PR^talk 10:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that this was the worst case of POV editing I have seen, what I'm suggesting is that to push a point of view of yours, you've engaged in edit warring at Operation Defensive Shield. My major concern with your editing is that your additions to articles constantly refer to pro-Palestine view points. I'm not suggesting that these shouldn't be included in articles, but they should be counteracted with the opposite views as well. To get a full picture of what the article is about, you should strive to edit add neutral views into the articles and try and see things from both sides of arguments. I see a lot of reverts in your contribution history, and as I've previously stated, they often try and hide the opposing sides view of a subject.

I don't think you have to worry about people attacking you or your mentors now. I know for one that I won't be influenced by what people come here and say (or in fact via emails) and I can assure you that if there are any issues with how users are interacting with you, on talk or article pages, I will be the first person to step in. I do see a number of users that seem to try and upset you, or get you into a position where you'll snap, and this is something I'm going to be looking at over the coming days. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't say fairer than that. In 3,000 or so edits I've never quoted a Palestinian source (I think I linked to 3 photographs on PalestineRemembered.com early on and was knocked back for it), I've never quoted Al-jazeera, I've never quoted ElectronicIntifada or any other "Palestinian" sources. Even when, as in this case, I quote the ZOA, the Sunday Mail, an Israeli newspaper and the pro-Israel Time Magazine, my edits are still dangerously "pro-Palestinian" and I have to be muzzled. I knew this to be the case - I just never expected a candidate for ArbCom to come straight out and say it! (Oh, and and of course I've never edit-warred - but I suppose that's another accusation I'm doomed to carry to my grave). PR^talk 19:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a question for you...

As an aspiring admin, I want to be ready for my RFA (not soon, but eventually), so I'm brushing up on my info. The question I have for you is this: Are admins allowed to instantly delete articles that normal users would place a prod on? Thanks for your time! Icestorm815 (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

In short, no. Admins are only allowed to instantly delete articles that qualify for speedy deletion. --Mark (Mschel) 04:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If a user had placed a prod on an article, an administrator must wait 5 days before deleting it. The only exception is if a user has tagged it as a prod, and the page does actually fall under one of the speedy deletion criterion - then an admin may delete the page early. I know you said you were just brushing up on policy, but were you referring to a particular page? Ryan Postlethwaite 07:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No, no page in specific. Thanks for the answer, I wasn't quite sure. Happy editing! Icestorm815 (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for supporting me! Please find your thank you card here, should you wish to see it. I'm honored to have received your support, as well as nearly a nom :) All the best, ~Eliz81^(C) 23:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Tapadh Leibh (Thank You)...

...for helping me navigate the waters of my surprisingly peaceful RFA, which closed successfully with 85 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral.

I would particularly like to thank Acalamari and Alison, my nominators, and everyone who watched the page and ran the tally.

I am honoured to have received your support, Ryan. Thank you for all the good work you're doing for the 'pedia (and soon you will have yet more tools! fear him!).

If there is anything I can do to be of service in the future, please feel free to contact me.

And forgive me if I need a Wikibreak now and then (like now. I'm exhausted!). You wouldn’t want to see me climbing the Reichstag, now would you?

Off to flail around with my new mop! (what?!)

Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫
This RfA thanks inspired by Neranei's, which was inspired by VanTucky's which was in turn inspired by LaraLove's which was inspired by The Random Editor's, which was inspired by Phaedriel's original thanks.

Almost

Goodbye, my almost lover Goodbye, my hopeless dream I'm trying not to think about you Can't you just let me be So long, my luckless romance My back is turned on you Shoulda known you'd bring me heartache Almost lovers always do -Gimme More (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 24 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Football referee (England), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--WjBscribe 03:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, one ahead now! *Cremepuff222* 01:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Mentorship question

I'm not sure if you want mentorship-type questions placed on your TalkPage, but you didn't object before and you've not suggested anywhere different to put them. Please tell me if you want this taken somewhere else.

I have a question for you (it's somewhat esoteric, because I won't actually ask it). Can you suggest a way to respond at the Saeb Erekat TalkPage to these comments?

As best I can tell, the sources provided there do not use the word "propaganda", so I can't understand the reference to it. There are three references provided, but only one of them levels an accusation of lying (and it comes from political opponents of the subject, apparently designed to elicit a suite for libel that Erekat hasn't taken up, for reasons I'd have thought very few people had trouble understanding). The two CNN quotes included add nothing atall (we're not being given Erekat's response to the question put to him, but it's in the same CNN transcript, and it's an entirely proper explanation of what he was doing.)

Furthermore, the way we're being asked to present the information appears deliberately deceitful. Even if we were to use the one JP clip (from 11,000 about Erekat, according to the same clip), we'd surely be guilty of serious distortion if we implied there was a real controversy on this topic in his biography. Erekat used the figure of 500 dead, the UN says 497 dead (though over a bigger area and a longer time-span). Erekat used the word "massacre" when Shimon Peres did the same - and we appear to have published evidence of at least one well-attested "up-against-the-wall" type shooting massacre. Meanwhile, named Israeli spokesmen appear to have over-estimated the number of Palestinian dead consistently, and by up to 381%. It would be bizarre indeed to treat Erekat as a falsifier in this context.

As I said, I'm not intending to comment there (despite the new clips apparently being in direct response to the careful investigation I've done on the subject), but I'd appreciate your input on how I'd deal with it if I wasn't muzzled. PR^talk 10:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi PR, give me a few hours to take a look, I'll respond later this evening (UTC). Ryan Postlethwaite 16:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, another request

Hey Ryan. I was wondering if you would do me a favor. Someone complained off-wiki that perhaps a few edits in the history of my user page ought be oversighted, because they are implicit personal attacks against everyone in general (this is not my view). However, I am eager to avoid conflict. Could you have a look at the history and see if there is anything that should be oversighted? IvoShandor (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The specific comment the other editor was referring to has an edit summary "go to hell". Just so you know, not that you should go to hell, or whatever place. IvoShandor (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, was it on your userpage or talkpage? Ryan Postlethwaite 14:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

User page. I believe that is the complaint, I just want to avoid any lingering nastiness, so I thought another opinion would be good. IvoShandor (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, got it! Oversights used when there are privacy concerns so this isn't applicable here. If there's no GFDL concerns, you could copy your userpage, allow me to delete the page and then just paste your old userpage back, meaning that the revision history wouldn't be viewable so those diffs you cite could only be viewed by admins. Want to try that? (Note, this method would only be acceptable on your userpage, not talk page or any other venue). Ryan Postlethwaite 14:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Okay, we can try that. I did try to explain to the other editor that I didn't think oversight was applicable, but they were persistent enough that it struck me as a concern. I don't know if you watched my page but when I blank it go ahead and delete it. IvoShandor (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Done, I've deleted the page so go ahead and recreate it, anything else you need, or want me to take a look, you're always welcome here :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 14:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(EC)Awesome, thanks. If anyone ever asks feel free to point to this discussion, as I want it to be as open as possible. I am not trying to hide anything. IvoShandor (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

My triumphant return is working out well. I am bringing down the U.S. Army as we speak. Figuratively, of course ;) IvoShandor (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Me likes your return! :-) Looks like you're doing a great job. You seem a lot happier as well which is good to see. Is easy to get frustated here, just remember that there's always light at the end of the tunnel. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I came here to award you the "What a Brilliant Idea!" Barnstar for your work in creating the New admin school. Since you have already been awarded the barnstar, please accept my thanks! I'm over half way through it, and it has been very helpful. I'm glad I didn't have to learn by fumbling around without a set of directions. Royalbroil 17:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Royalbroil, I'm pleased you've found WP:NAS helpful. I wish someone had it when I was a new admin! It's complicated at first, but I promise it'll get easier. Good luck with the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 48	26 November 2007	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles	WikiWorld comic: "Cursive"
News and notes: Ombudsman commission, fundraiser, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Education in Australia	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) 08:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

You can also fix any entry, including your own, should you find any additional errors. Ral315 » 17:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. A lot of people seem to think that I'm the only one who can edit stories, and it's a view that's really untrue -- we generally discourage major edits, since many users have already read the page, and if a major edit is needed, I'd rather have it be a new story for next week's issue, where everyone will read it. But minor edits are perfectly fine. Ral315 » 21:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing for image

Hey Ryan, I just noticed this image which was uploaded by you a while back. It hasn't got source information or copyright status, but I wasn't going to do that pointless tagging, so I just thought I'd point it out to you, so you may do as you wish with it. Qst 20:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was going to use it on my user page but did not get around to it, deleted now anyway! Ryan Postlethwaite 22:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom table with portfolio links

Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.

My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian 05:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)    (Please reply on this page. I'll be watching it for a while.)

Please protect mentored from bullying.

Hi Ryan - you kindly said you'd protect me from bullying. (Though I'm not entirely sure why, I'd never complained of it, the biggest problem seemed to be I'd stood up to it rather too well in the past).

Well, all of a sudden, I think I am being bullied - at this edit, which looks very much like an attempt to taunt me into a response that would inevitably lead to me getting an indef-block. It's an in-your-face denial of the careful work I've done here and I assume you don't wish me to respond directly to this editor because of [censored].

I shouldn't need to re-hash with you the specifics of the breach of Biographies of Living People policy of Wikipedia that's being attempted in this case (it's all laid out in my table). Note how the challenge to me is with three references that don't actually use the words claimed ("propaganda", "controversy"). The only one claiming that Erekat lied is an op-ed, an unpleasant taunting of him by his political enemies to sue an Israeli newspaper in an Israeli court.

When you've applied your mind to this problem, I do have some good news - it seems that all four of the edits of mine you thought I'd been edit-warring over [10][11][12][13] are now safely in the articles where I was trying to put them. Do I get remission on my sentence for improving articles against the very heavy odds on these occasions? PR^talk 15:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi PR. I agree in this instance there are some issues with the way the sources are being used and fully understand your BLP concerns. I think it should be made clear in the aticle that there are two figues that could be used here, both discussing different periods of time. I've commented on the talk page anyway and my thoughts should be clearer there. It's good to see your contributionsare in the articles and obviously consensus has fallen in your favour (but I would add it's best to find consensus before edit warring). Ryan Postlethwaite 18:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Basically, we really don't know what went on in the West Bank all through March and April and up to May 7th;2002. However, the only mass killings we have are Nablus (80 Palestinians, 3 Israeli soldiers) and Jenin, where the UN (sometimes wrongly quoted) say: "A senior Palestinian Authority official alleged in mid-April that some 500 were killed, a figure that has not been substantiated in the light of the evidence that has emerged. " It's reasonably clear that Erekat's claims were only a modest (and fairly understandable) exaggeration, whereas the Israeli claims for the same period (judging by what they claim now) would have to count as lies.

Would it be alright by you to go in and remove all reference to what Erekat said on the subject? Not only is it nastily untrue in it's current state, but it's being given massively undue weight. As documented elsewhere on that TalkPage, there's a BBC profile ([14]) which makes no mention of the supposed controversy at all, a globalsecurity.org's profile ([15]) which makes no mention of the supposed controversy at all, there's three pages of the New York Times' archiving "articles about Saeb Erekat" ([16]), which make no mention in the headlines or lead sections and the Jewish Virtual Library (A Division of The American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise) bio on Erakat ([17]) with nothing about this supposed controversy.

And ..... I need advice from you - progress on this article was impossible for over a year, as a single editor has tenaciously edit-warred against 5 others to prevent the clearing up this UNDUE material (and the inclusion of some very poor sources). (Another editor defended the use of the cult newspaper, but agreed with the 80% consensus that the material itself didn't need to be there). How should editors like me get this stopped - surely admins have a duty to reign in this kind of behaviour and not defend those who behave this way? PR^talk 19:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, user conduct issues are tough, have you previously attempted to discuss the problems with the user? If so, a user conduct RfC might be in order - especially if he is going against consensus constantly on the article in quiestion. For issues like this, RfC's are the best way to go and allow a lot of outside comments from neutral parties. It can often help the user in question change his ways, but if he does not take it seriously and continues poor behaviour, it can lead to arbitration. Would yoube interested in mediation on the page so everyne can work their issues through together? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have tried to discuss issues with the subject. I was blocked for it, despite my contribution being the fifth consecutive complaint on his TalkPage, and the only one that wasn't angry. Note that this block is the only time any of my 4 "failed mentors" expressed any kind of serious concern at "my behavior" (actually, this occured while the mentor was in both severe personal and severe WP stress - but you can see why I and others are intimidated into not making formal complaints). Note the arrogance of the response from the subject, nothing is going to control him.

In this atmosphere of fear and the clear evidence of preferential treatment to an editor with ownership of dozens of pages across the project, it's no wonder there's a chill on editing them and wanton BLP infractions survive indefinitely. I keep meaning to go to the ArbCom question page and ask all the candidates "Should illiteracy and general ignorance disqualify individuals from editing here?". I feel confident to answer that question for other good-faith editors here! PR^talk 12:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Because you don't...

Thanks for the "Final Warning"... I only created the article Clow Cards (list) only to put the focus on the cards and put images for they, and you removed all of them, except the first one. Because you don't DELETE the article to finish? --Blean 17:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

Here's some fire for you! Fire somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this 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 00:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

*Cremepuff222* has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

*Cremepuff222* 02:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you and ...

Hi Ryan, Thank you for initiating to lift my parole. I just left more in the ArbCom page [[18]]. Do you know why I am the only one being singled out and other admins do not want to lift my parole. Thank you for any hints in advance. Regards, --Aynabend 07:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/208.31.142.31

Hi. In this edit, you removed my report, but did not state a reason. Might I ask your reason? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah of course, I should have been a little bit more specific. The final warning was from 25 November and the IP had only one warning today. Because IP's can switch, it was most probably a different user vandalising this time, so we should eally have the full set o 4 warnings within 24 hours before blocking IP's. Hope that helps explain. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Replying

Hi Ryan,

When you reply on a talk page, or anything such as a help desk, how do you make your reply indented?

The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 19:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Never Mind! Figured it Out! The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 19:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I really appreciate the article protection

Thank you much, Ryan, for protecting the article. I really appreciate your timely response. TimidGuy (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This protection of Transcendental Meditation has worked well. Naturezak, the new editor who made changes against consensus and deleted material sourced to peer-reviewed journals without explanation, has been making an excellent contribution to the discussions. We have quickly arrived at a number of points of consensus, and are making definite progress toward improving the article. Still, there are matters to resolve. Also, a couple editors with strong feelings have been completely absent from the discussion, and it's not clear what their intent is once the protection is lifted. Might be a good idea to extend protection a while so that we can continue this progress. Thanks much. TimidGuy 16:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Durova

Hey, I just supported you for your candidacy for Arbitration, but I saw some stuff about Durova. I skimmed the ArbCom case, but you didn't come up. What is that whole thing about? I'm confident in my support; just curious. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I'll explain - I was extremely disapointed with what Durova did, I went to her talk page and expressed my disapointment to her, but then, because of the nasty person that I am, I realised that she made a mistake and unlike a lot of users here, didn't want to see her get executed for one mistake so shock horror, on her RfC, I suggested she might be forgiven(!!!!!) - yup, disgraceful I know - but I guess the protesters won in the end, and durova's no longer an admin. I also proposed on the workshop page of the RfArb that Durva should be thanked for her work as an admin, because before this one incident, she was an excellent administrator and no-one would have thought something like this would happen. It seems to have cost me, but I'm happy because I did the right thing. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't speak for everybody, but I think it would be wrong to fault you for that. Honest, earnest opinions are a valuable commodity. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I could be considered part of "the other side" of the issue. I don't want to go over everything again but let me highlight what some people perceived your role in the whole mess was. Some people took away from both the RfC and your thanking that there was a group of people who totally missed (or worse, dis-missed) their concerns. Durova without question did a lot of good as an admin. However, the one incident she did make a mistake on instantly called into question the other blocks and work she has made. Thanking her at that point in time further raised issues of dismissing the forest for the trees.

Let me explain this further.

Quite a few of us, myself included, thought her evidence before !!'s block was rock solid, extensive, and damning and when she acted she had the full backing of the rest of the admin staff and arbcom based on what she states on ANI when she mades a block. When the evidence did come out regarding !!'s block, it all fell apart. The evidence, for a lack of a better term, was laughable even taken in the worst possible light. If this is what she had for a sock, what did she have for the rest of the people she blocked? The fact that she has reversed quite a few blocks lately started questions along the lines of "Why are we blocking good editors who on the surface has done no wrong."

If nothing else happened (no evidence outing, no secret mailing lists being revealed, etc), your comments would probably not have been such a big deal. However, the evidence did come out, their were mailing lists revealed, and a lot of editors who blindly trusted her did not look good. Your and Jossi's comments on the RfC provided a lighting rod for those who felt their concerns were being dismissed by a select group of admins trying to calm the masses down and deflect criticism from Durova. They were focusing on the action part of the mistake and not the global view of the events leading up to and the implications of the mistake were. The aftermath of the evidence and secret list outing along with the behavior of others did not look good after all was said and done.

Honestly, it boiled down to the timing of your statements "sucking". If you made your comments at different times, it might not have been a big deal. But with that said, I hope you take a recent American politician word's to heart in the future: "Trust, but verify" if an event like this comes up again. Trust your fellow admin, but verify that admin actually did their homework and got an A+ on it. spryde | talk 20:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You see, this is a major misconception - I didn't support what Durova did, when the block first happened, I went to her talk page and made my feelings very clear that I thought they way she went around her block wrong. But then the floodgates opened and this turned into something much bigger than what it should have been. My major point here is that there's admins here that have done far worse and yet they are still administrators - I still don't agree that one mistake should have meant Durova resigned and feel the actions against her were completely disproportionate. A slap on the wrist with a firm understanding that this was not to happen was all that was required here, not an attempt by many to drive her off the project. What ocurred in this case was extremely disproportionate when compared to other incidents of administrators getting it wrong, and shows an extremely sad inconsistency that Wikipedia has as a project at the moment. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I know you did not support what Durova did, however the comments were taken that way. I am not sure if I totally agree with you on the inconsistency. I see new users and old being driven off by the actions of each other. I do see inconsistency in the way people are treated. Should that be? I use to think not. I am not so sure lately. spryde | talk 20:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(indent) Hmm - was Durova even warned about her actions, or did it just jump to ArbCom and RfC? If not, I completely get where you're coming from, though I would probably have also sided with Jossi on this one. Everyone makes mistakes. If this was a repeat offense, then yeah, I could understand ArbComming it. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 22:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 49	3 December 2007	About the Signpost

Signpost interview: New Executive Director Sue Gardner	Arbitration Committee elections: Elections open
Possible license migration sparks debate	Featured articles director names deputy
Software bug fixed, overuse of parser function curtailed	WikiWorld comic: "Wordplay"
News and notes: Wikipedian honored, fundraiser, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: LGBT studies	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 10:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

PPA Mediation

I know I was rather slow in responding to the last round of comments on the MedCom wiki, but I am getting concerned that the mediation is grinding to a halt. I was hoping you might be able to jolt it in the right direction again, and get us mediating again. I know that formal mediation is a slow process, and that it can take time, we all have to deal with that, but at this rate, we won't finish mediating before users start dieing of old age. I would appreciate it if you could give the mediation a little tug in the right direction again. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Martijn. I'll certainly get to it over the next couple of days. I've managed to go through 4 hard drives this week on my laptop, so you could say I'm having a few problems actually getting online - I'm having to travel to computer rooms at present. I've got a few ideas for the mediation, so I'll present them on the MedCom wiki soon. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 15:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yipes, that's ungood. Laptops are Evil, I tell you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You got mail. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, never mind.

Sorry to see you withdraw from the ArbCom elections. Never mind, don't worry about it :) Qst 12:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Argh! I was just getting ready to vote support for you! Double-argh!! Dreadstar † 15:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

As per Qst and Dreadstar really. I'm actually quite disappointed by the loss of another great candidate at the ArbCom elections this month. The opposition didn't really seem to have much care for your other edits and valid reason for becoming a nominee, past the Durova incident. Something I have no idea about. I just only hope next time it comes round, you'll be the front runner. Because that's probably the best thing for this project. — Rudget _{contributions} 21:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

For speaking out on judging someone by a single mistake, became the single mistake by which you were judged, is ironic indeed. Best wishes going forward, you do great work here. --Stephen 00:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am very sad both about the opposition and that you withdrew because of it. I hope this doesn't set an example for people becoming afraid to make well-intended suggestions like yours for fear that they get unreasonably punished for them. — Sebastian 01:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all, your words are much appreciated - I guess it just wasn't to be. I look forward to seeing you all around the wiki in the future, all four of you are users I highly respect. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Count me in on the people who thought it was a shame you had to withdraw. I respect your decision though, and I do hope you'll run again next year. I look forward to supporting you for the second time. :) Acalamari 22:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Good luck

Hi there! Thanks for your wishing me good luck. I wish you the best future too. Cheers, (^_^) --- D@rk ^talk 16:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess I just have bad luck...

It appears that a certain 202.156.66.110 that you may or may not remember as a user who tried to frame you for blocking me for no reason. Now you may also remember that a certain "coalition" of editors have wanted me blocked for some time now and have just now let up on their "assault" which is really the only reason why I have recently begun editing again and I'm truly not in the mood for another editor to be added to that list just when I've begun to actually enjoy editing again. I've come to you mainly because you've dealt with him before to some extent and I also ask you to watch him and deter him from tacking on more offensive to his already extensive warning/block record before I end up getting myself blocked which I may be close to doing. Thank you. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 22:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've warned him for harassment, if he continues, then he'll be blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Very much appreciated. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 00:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

:-(

You've just won a Mikado game! Almost as stressful as the Arbcom!

I'm sorry to see you withdrew from the Arbcom election. Please don't be discouraged and remember that your work and presence here is always much appreciated. Maybe better luck next year if you intend to run again. Meanwhile, happy editing! See you around! :-) Best regards, Húsönd 06:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Block

you removed the block, and it seems I can edit, but I have a message saying it should still be there. can you clarify pls. edward (buckner) (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This editor was reblocked after you unblocked, the removal of the indefblocked template seems rather pointless considering he is blocked right now. If he is re-unblocked, feel free to revert to his comment again. — Save_Us_229 11:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

We aren't sure yet if he is to remain blocked, we don't put that template on until we're sure that the user in question is going to remain blocked. This boils down to a legal threat, and when he withdraws it fully he will be allowed to edit again. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Username change

Hi cat. Now that it has been brought to the community attention that there is another user who's name is WhiteCat who predates your name change, I believe that your username is confusingly similar to this one, and may run afoul of WP:U. At very least, please consider implementing the ideas at WP:U#Username_disambiguation. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, is that enough? -- Cat ^chi? 12:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That looks good to me, it's just an unfortunate situation when two editors in good standing have very similar user names. I think the disambig clears the problem now. Thanks for your co-operation White Cat. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a similar disambig on the other users page with his consent. It may appear like a COI if I made the request myself. -- Cat ^chi? 15:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah of course white cat, I'll have a little chat to him in a little while, just got to get back to uni now - good idea. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

regional power article

I see that you have protected the regional power article because of an edit war. I would ask you to please review the history of this article, to see how this problem started. Argentina has been listed as a regional power for months. I included it several months ago, after finding reliable and objetive external sources that backed up its inclussion, and after a respectful discussion with other wikipedians. You can check that by checking the history of the article. A couple weeks ago, this fanatic user Kardark started removing Argentina for no apparent reason. He just said that "it was not a regional power", without any sources to back that up. I reverted his changes since they were of a vandalistic nature, and I also looked for two more external sources stating that Argentina is a regional power, bringing the total up to four. But he wouldnt care, he would keep removing Argentina without a valid justification, and I would keep reverting his changes. For this, he started calling me a "fanatic", a "lunatic", and a "troll". The truth is, he is removing sourced information because of his personal opinion. I dont think thats OK. And what he has done now is, removing Argentina once again and then protecting the Article, so it cant be included. Everything I explained to you can be checked by looking at the history of the article. Please assist. Aletano (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

Just a happy Birthday message to you, Ryan Postlethwaite/archive13, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

 Idontknow610  (WANNA TALK??)

A happy birthday from me as well. :) Acalamari 19:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Enjoy yourself... but not too much ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Happy Birthday buddy! I can't send you a Wikipedia pint so I'll just have to owe you to will meet! Pedro :  Chat  21:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy birthday Ryan! GlassCobra 21:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy birthday, man. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

God, I'm finding myself here more and more often. Happy birthday! :) — Rudget _speak.work 21:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto ol' fruit, hope you have a hangover tomorrow ;) ^Khukri 21:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Woot! Happy birthday, Poss! :) Sarah 18:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou guys! Unfortunatley last night was a little bit too much for me, and I've spent today in bed feeling sorry for myself! Thank god for paracetemol! Ryan Postlethwaite 18:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Messed up at Saeb Erekat

I think you've messed up with your contribution to the TalkPage at this article. I brought it to your attention because you're supposed to be mentoring me, and I thought I was being bullied - you appear to have ignored my complaint completely. I'd done a careful analysis of the facts of the case, and I don't believe our WP article is written on the basis of "the facts as appear in reliable sources". To whit, Erekat may have been guilty of exaggeration (though it's difficult to be sure) but it's neither realistic nor referenced to claim he lied. Meanwhile, many of his political opponents provided versions which are virtually outright lies (at least according to what their own side claimed later). If the purpose of writing articles is to slander people, it's these others we'd be slating.

Seperately, the RS's don't state what is being alleged, that this business is notable (the RS's barely mention it). Nor that it is controversial. Why did you arrive suggesting a compromise but BLP-breaching version by which we say it was controversial and Erekat's words were "widely refuted as being false"?

Even with your support, the consensus as I've tabulated it appears to be 5 editors who don't think we should say that Erekat is a lier, one that says he is a lier and yourself saying that his words were "controversial".

Meanwhile, I see similar reference and consensus-trashing edit-wars going on between some of the same actors in many other places - is it reasonable to look to administrators to stamp out this kind of ownership? Particularily when there are serious BLP issues at stake. Saeb Erekat appears to have been instrumental (if not crucial) to getting agreement at Annapolis only a day or two ago - surely WP should give him a fair crack of the whip - and not treat him as some kind of serial falsifier. PR^talk 21:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC) PS - I've contributed a comment here here - do you see any problem with what I've stated? PR^talk 22:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

University of Missouri

The term referred to the entire University of Missouri System officially from 1963 till now and is used for the University of Missouri-Columbia public relations matters but not on official matters. The common usage is not overwhelmingly referring to a single school but there is a push on Wikipedia to enforce the school's Alumni organization politics on Wikipedia namespace. I would like to open up the page naming to a wider view of experienced Wikipedia editors instead of the microcosm the page currently has. Does that mean Mediation committee? Alatari (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

At the stage you're currently at, I think discussion should continue on Talk:University of Missouri System - there looks like there's room to attempt to come to an amicable consensus there. If this fails, then I'd suggest opening a request for comment, where experienced users are able to comment on the discussion. Then as a last step, you could request mediation - as I said, I don't think it's quite in need of that just yet. Hope that helps, Ryan Postlethwaite 00:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ping

Thanks for the notice. I posted on the talk page that I am unwilling to block at the moment due to some apparently quite credible sockpuppet concerns. However, as I will be busy for the rest of the night, I have left a note asking for other admins to review this on WP:AN/I#Blue5864. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Block

Thanks, Ryan. Max Sem almost beat you to it... (leaving a message on the talk page is sufficient to stop the bot) Rich Farmbrough, 18:40 9 December 2007 (GMT).

Yeah I've just found out about the talk page message, sorry for making the block. Feel free to unblock when you're ready. I'm just going to roll all the edits back unless you can think of a simpler method? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thansk for doing the rollback. Saved me trawling through them, and they should be re-applied correctly next run. Rich Farmbrough, 19:27 9 December 2007 (GMT).

Brill, there's still a few others mixed in, but it would be too great a task to go through the individual edits so we might have to leave it until people spot the mistake. Thanks for taking care of it. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Userpage protection problem

Thanks for protecting my userpage, but can you please change it so that I can edit it? Thank you! 'FLaRN'(talk) 01:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've unprotected your userpage - that's the only way you can edit it. I think enough time has passed since the vandalism anyway. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Rollback for non-administrators#Random thought

Hello. I've been trying to catch you on IRC all day today, but that has proved fruitless. I hope you saw the linked discussion; personally, it seems like a much better approach that alleviates some of the concerns about rollback mis-use and responsibility of the user. Honestly, I can't ever see your new proposal at Wikipedia:Rollback for non-administrators proposal ever being implemented by anyone with scap capabilities. It adds a new user class, more bureaucracy, and the developers have pushed back several times against ideas like this. Not only do those issues exist, you'd have to find someone willing to write the code, which could prove difficult to do, and you may not find a willing volunteer, especially if there's a high likelihood that nothing will come of it. This of course avoids the discussion of creating yet another process on en.wiki, which I don't think would receive support either; we have quite a few already. : - ) I saw your note about the motivation for making this change here. I think rollback could be an excellent tool for non-admins to have and I can see the issues with doing so. Having a user preference puts the responsibility on the user; they would have to enable rollback and then mis-use it, which would, in my mind, alleviate a lot of the concerns that admins have about using blocks for rollback mis-use. Also, as I wrote on the RfC talk page, an edit count attribute could easily be linked to the availability of the feature, if that were so desired. I'm interested in your thoughts about preference proposal; let me know. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of us have to work :-) I actually missed this discussion, but it's a really good idea - I like the idea of the user having to actively switch on rollback, which would no doubt mean some understanding of Wikipedia and the rollback function. I understand the concerns of my proposal - I was hoping we could get a huge consensus for it meaning the devs would have to take a serious look at implementing it, but it doesn't look like there's going to be anywhere near enough consensus for that. My major concern with any idea where it's automatically given is that it's there for life - having an ability to remove rollback would be far better than blocking IMHO, but this looks like a suitable compromise. If the user activates it, then they have to accept the consequences if they misuse it. I'll certainly comment positively about it tomorrow (just about to go to bed) on the talk page. I should be on IRC tomorrow so we can have a discussion about it there because I've got a few ideas to throw at you regarding it. Thanks for making me aware of this, Ryan Postlethwaite 03:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Kanchan Gupta

Hi. I first time nominated the article Kanchan Gupta for AfD using TW, but the link in AfD "this article's entry" appeared red. I clicked the link, saved the page, but next time I again when visited the page, the link showed red. So I removed the AfD tag and renomiated it for AfD. This time the link appeared blue. I don't know why this happened. I have redirected the former AfD page to this new page. Can the former page be deleted? Kindly investigate in the matter. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the original AfD, and moved the 2nd nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanchan Gupta and fixed it appropriately so it appears like the first nom. It was also listed twice on the main AfD page so I've removed the second listing - Hope that helps. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent Deletion of the Article 'Russell Elrod'

I believe that you recently deleted the article titled 'Russell Elrod'. I wanted to confirm your reasons for the deletion. Thank you for your time. Benjendav (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course you can. When I was reading through the article I could see no claim of notability. For the article to be notable, it should have reliable sources that show how it meet the biographical article notability standards - this article didn't do so. Would you like me to undelete it and put it into you userspace so you can work on it to get it upto standard? Ryan Postlethwaite 16:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate that. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjendav (talk • contribs) 17:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the article for you, and put it into your userspace which can be found at User:Benjendav/Russell Elrod - remember to include some claim of notability per WP:BIO and let me know if you want to review it before moving it back into the main article space. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Review

Please review edit war at Semper fidelis and User talk:Bond-Peters. Has he reached the blocking point? — Rlevse • Talk • 16:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was getting disruptive so I blocked. It was a magnitude of different things I blocked for, including adding original research and edit warring. On there own, maybe it wouldn't have been so bad, but when you add them up it go to the point where a block was required. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you?

Hi Ryan, could you have a look at Special:Contributions/Cackalackakilla. I find it unnerving that a brand new user would stumble upon AfD so quickly. I'm not quite sure what to make of it, and would like an other opinion. Thanks in advance. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 21:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi KOS, good to hear from you. I've taken a look and I've got to say I find it a little strange - especially when the arguments do have a policy foundation. I've had a word with him, because I'm concerned that he may have another account - it may/may not be a sock infringement but we should probably play it by ear at the minute. I'll see what response I get. Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite 21:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew I could count on you! I'll continue to keep an eye on the situation as well. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 21:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

AFDs / cackalackakilla

Hey. I'm at school and forgot my password, so I created a new account. I know that AFDs are not a vote. But I figure I would contribute some arguments to video game articles. It is up to the administrator to weigh the arguments and determine the best course of action. Cackalackakilla (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Identity theft email

Sorry, didn't see your request on ANI until just now - [19] should give you what you're after. Cheers, Bencherlite^Talk 01:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah cheers, I'll email him. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:NYB

Anyone who watches that page (the intended audience) will see the diffs and be able to enjoy the joke and perhaps the reaction as well. I guess that makes me look like the wet blanket 0_o, but I am fine with that characterization. I think there are more imaginative ways to have fun than a big banner, like maybe a Cabal inspired haiku on his talkpage. Whatever though, I am certainly not going to have an edit war over something so silly, so restore it if you like. —Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 16:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not into edit warring, especially not on something as pathetic as that - just think about things in the future - we're a community, we can have fun sometimes and it's just sad when someone comes and spoils that. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Protection of TV Links

I noticed that you declined the request to semi-protect TV Links. While the current rash of vandalism has only been ongoing for the past 3 or so days, every edit over that time period (and there are over 20. [[20]])has been either vandalism or reverting it. In specific there is an anon user, using at least 3 distinct IPs, that insists on adding his own website to the top of the page. His edits simply consist of undoing those of editors who undo his. I'd like to ask you to consider semi-protecting this for at least a few days to see if this will deter him. Thanks. Random89 (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's got a little worse - I've protected the page for 72 hours so hopefully that should put an end to it. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll make sure to keep an eye on it then. Random89 (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, really bad haiku from a new admin

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Click there for my RfA spam haikus! → → →

Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will new mop act?
Ooops, .com blocked

New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well Main Page

New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault

A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out DRV

A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye

Qatar is blocked
Shucks those range blocks are tricky!
Will get it straight soon.

Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ... A. B.

This RfA thank you card is based on a card originally done by Phaedriel

Ryan, thanks so much for your support,
--A. B. ^(talk) 19:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

*Cremepuff222* has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Sorry. *Cremepuff222* 02:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Double section on RfA talk

Hey. You accidentally added the section on Gp75motorsports' RfA to the talk page twice. I went ahead and removed the second, as it was a clear accident. However, I just thought I would let you know. Cheers. SorryGuy  Talk  03:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah cheers for that, I saw you do it in my watchlist. You can blame my poor intenet connection for that error ;-) Thanks again, Ryan Postlethwaite 03:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 50	10 December 2007	About the Signpost

Wikipedia dragged into German politics over Nazi images	Wales comments on citing Wikipedia produce BBC correction
WikiWorld comic: "Kilroy was here"	News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Greater Manchester
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Editprotected

I did the editprotected thing on the Template talk:Infobox MLB retired‎, now what do I do--Yankees10 (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ifn I unprotect the page for half an hour, could you fix it in that time? Ryan Postlethwaite 01:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

yeah I just want to do something minor--Yankees10 (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

yeah--Yankees10 (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

yes, thanks--Yankees10 (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm done, I didnt do anthing because I have no clue how to do the thing I want to do, sorry for wasting your time--Yankees10 (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you know anybody that can help me with my problem--Yankees10 (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you want to do? Ryan Postlethwaite 02:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to set the colors to #dcdcdc, like the Template:Infobox NFLretired, so that we dont have to go to every single infobox and change the color, because we want there to be neutral colors now--Yankees10 (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Fluency

Pedro is the Spanish equivalent of the English for Peter. Just as La_Resaca is The_Undertow. How is that a revelation? Do you wish to punish me for living in Mexico for a year? the_undertow ^talk 11:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unaware of that, so please accept my appologies - Pedro just seemed a little rattled by it that's all. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And yet you still leave unprotection for my talk page - MY TALK PAGE - regardless of the impending usurpation, of which I didn't really feel necessary to declare, until now. the_undertow ^talk 12:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to protect it, then go, go away - excercise your right to vanish, but don't start editing and expect your talk page to stay protected. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It was protected and adequate information was given for anyone, within the next 11 hours, until I usurp another username, which was fair. I appreciate the advice, but coming from someone who prides themselves on expletives and inebriation on their userpage, well...I'll take it with a grain of salt. the_undertow ^talk 13:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really as you carried on editing, I'm not the one causing problems here, so I would appreciate it if you didn't start with the attacks. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Noted and perceived attack withdrawn. Here's an emoticon: ;) the_undertow ^talk 22:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ryan!

Hey dear, Moonriddengirl has asked me about IRC cloaks, and stuff, and I recalled how wonderful you were to help me with mine, so I suggested perhaps you could assist her? You can see the discussion here, if you have some time on your hands today. :o) Ariel♥Gold 13:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Bringing it to the man. :) I've managed to launch chatzilla, to set myself a nickname and to reach freenode & irc://freenode/%23wikipedia-en. Yay. To a technophobe, this stuff is pretty daunting. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Update--I figured out how to reset my password using the commands at sorcery net and I have now received a message "Your nickname is now linked to" (my main nick). I'm trying to figure out this cloak business. Thanks so much for your help. I do not love new (to me) technology. :P --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Current message "Your request has been successfully entered into the queue. Unfortunately, it may take up to a week or so to process; thank you for your patience." Wish me luck. :) Thanks again for your help. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)