This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ryan Postlethwaite. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thanks
One of my favorite pictures
Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 74 supporting, 3 opposing, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have placed in me. —Remember the dot(talk)18:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
How are admins notified of requests for unblocking and editprotected requests? I know one can't watch the category, since that only watches description changes. The WP:COIN has a tag that transcludes a category for editors who have COI's who wish another individual to incorporate info in a page. And we're trying to figure out how those of us active in it, can be notified when a new page is added to the category. MBisanztalk03:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
What is the school usually about. I'm interest on become and admin one day so I can block users, delete pages, and contribs, protect and semi-protect pages. Where in Southern California to attend school? I'm form South Orange County, California.--Freewayguy (Meet) 19:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Freewayguy. I should clarify what the new admin school is - it's simply a few pages to help new admins test their tools so they don't do it on the main pages, we haven't actually got a school. If you are considering becoming an admin, might I suggest admin coaching? You might find that benificial, and the good news is, you can do it safely from your own home ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite22:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 58 supporting, 0 opposing, and 2 neutral. I hope to demonstrate that your trust in me is rightly placed and am always open to critiques and suggestions. Cheers. MBisanztalk04:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Best pic I've seen
Looking bad
I don't have any intention of making you look bad. The pokeratlas user unblock seems completely reasonable. The user has disregarded my editing advice. Wikipedia wins and doesn't look like a Nazi.
Since Bellwether BC is making a stink, I put the question up in ANI. I chose ANI because now it seems to be more urgent with BC being so mad about it. If BC is so mad, he/she should see some other admins. who are really Nazis as far as blocking. Archtransit (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Award
Egg Award-To Ryan for mentoring effort and preparing administrator lessons. May he not have too much egg on his face. From Archtransit, 18 February 2008
Hm. Ryan, your mentee is in my soup: User talk:TenOfAllTrades#Block. He seems to be accusing me of being on an anti-American/anti-gambling crusade. Lest there be any further confusion, I understand him to be barred from using any of his admin buttons until given explicit permission from you and/or Riana to do so. I would strongly urge you to restrict him from declaring a 'consensus' in any discussion, given his interpretation of his recent AN thread.
I'm very likely to block him if he steps outside those bounds. I've stuck up for him before, but frankly I find very little reason to trust his judgement in the future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, he's digging himself a very deep hole with edits like this. I'd be inclined to sharply warn an editor with a clean history that that type of attack is unacceptable and might draw a block. Coupled with Arch's history (recent and older) and his rather POINTy report on AN/I where he attacks Bellwether and Friday as 'bitey', 'disruptive', and 'trolling', he's skating on astonishingly thin ice, and it is only my respect for you and Riana that's keeping him unblocked right now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi TOAT. I'm concerned about this sort of thing because it doe honestly make me think that he doesn't have a clue - I'm in dialogue with him now where I'm bringing up these issues with him, he can't talk to editors like he has been, when to be honest - he's wrong. Hopefully we won't have to resort to blocks with this one - I'm going to suggest he stays out of meta discussion completely for a while. Ryan Postlethwaite21:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Ryan; I'm afraid I've been letting him get under my skin a bit, and I shouldn't be so testy with you. I wish you the best of luck with this, but I admit to holding out very little expectation of success. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
TenOfAllTrades has wrongly accused me of "He seems to be accusing me of being on an anti-American/anti-gambling crusade." This is not true. Ten was merely asked why he thought User:thepokeratlas should be blocked or re-blocked. Ten has not said why. The only difference between the ANI and listing the user's name (which was an oversight on my part) was that the user seems to be American and pro-gambling. I just asked if this or the word "poker" would make him change his decision or if such information would make a material difference in the discussion.
Therefore, Ten's belief that he is being called anti-American or anti-gambling is incorrect.
One difficulty in resolving this matter is that it increasing looks like a personal grudge against me and not based on my actions. The reason I think this is that there is little evidence that the unblock was bad, except that some people are opposed to unblocking on principle. It would look a little less of a grudge if Ten or someone pointed out what was wrong.
For example, if someone said "the policy doesn't require blocking but in practice we always block that kind of name", then it could be an example to learn. If someone says "when an administrator blocks someone, we never unblock them unless the user has an airtight case and the administrator is clearly abusive; even if there is only a weak explanation by the administrator, this is sufficient" then I would follow this (and likely try to convince others that such practice is not good for Wikipedia).
You can be of assistance in mentorship. You could e-mail me and say "look Archtransit, we have some customs in WP that we don't ....." This unblock of thepokeratlas was an attempt to follow policy. Look at the big picture. Was Wikipedia harmed? Did thepokeratlas destroy articles? No. Did thepokeratlas try to advertise thepokeratlas.com? No, but I educated him on WP policy. Is thepokeratlas so angry that he/she wants to attack WP? I don't think so. Incorporate this incident into our lesson and it will help. Archtransit (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey Maximillion. The reason why we have Special:Unwatchedpages only open to admins is because it's open to a serious ammount of abuse - even for a short period of time, a page could be subjected to seriously bad editing, especially BLP violations. Given the problems with rollback, I wouldn't suggest adding a new usergoup for this. It would be good however if somehow we could reduce the page to next to nothing, and then open it up - the problem now is that we just have too many pages on it. Ryan Postlethwaite05:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Ryan. You closed out the Intellitech article as keep, and I believe that was an incorrect decision. The article as it stands still fails to meet notability guidelines (WP:CORP). There are two external references posted in the article. One is a reprint of a company press release (from business wire, where any business can release any press release they like), and the other is merely an entry in a list of 450,000 companies, with no discussion about the company itself. Since an AfD is supposed to be closed based on the merits of the arguments presented and not the number of votes, I believe that a deletion review would overturn your closing the AdD as a keep, and I'd like you to reconsider. — XSG16:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep was the right decision. It wasn't number counting, the consensus was the the sources were accpetable. Those wishing to delete said exactly the opposite, but after a user found some extra sources during the discussion, all other users who commented said keep. I don't think DRV would overturn my decision, but try by all means. Ryan Postlethwaite16:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Based on that rational then yes, you made the correct decision, however I don't think your rationale takes into account the validity of arguments made by those who said keep. The reason this article doesn't stand up to the WP:CORP notability test is that each and every reference (and I am not even slightly exaggerating here) is either a) written by the company, b) a corporate press releases posted on a third-party site through Business Wire, or c) provide merely trivial coverage (i.e. provides the name and address of the company). If I were just glancing at the article, I'd have thought it met WP:CORP, but on further investigation it really doesn't. I'd feel better if you at least told me you took a look at the article and agreed that it met WP:CORP notability guidelines. — XSG02:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
But it's not my job to decide whether I believe the article should be kept or deleted - I simply work out the consensus. As I said, the people commenting keep believed the sources were adequate to ensure it meets WP:CORP. From what I recall, after the sources were added, there were only people commenting to keep the article. If I was commenting on the article, I would be on the fence - possibly even sway to weak delete because I'm not convinced (not completely unconvinced though) that the sources are adequate, but that's not what the consensus of the AfD was, and it's not the closing admins job to make the decision based on his own opinion. Ryan Postlethwaite02:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
That's quite fair, and I sincerely appreciate your taking the time to explain it to me. Knowing that one of Wikipedia's tenets is to err on the side of keep, I think it's best to see what becomes of this article over the next year. If it isn't improved (and if someone remembers to check up on it), we'll see which way the wind blows then. — XSG02:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry
Hello Ryan, don't worry too much about what happened: you did what you thought was right with the mentorship (I supported your proposal), and you assumed good faith to the very end. I think you performed spectacularly through it all, and I want to congratulate you. I think that anyone mentored by you should be honored by the fact you're taking them under your wing. Best wishes. Acalamari19:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oneonta Gulf Coast Collaboration
Yes; when you relist you add to the current day (as you did) and then remove manually from the previous log. It is also good practice then to go to WP:AFDO and then click on 'Refresh the number of open discussions' to avoid fellow admins from following completed trails. HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to say...
I'd send you cookies or kittens or whatever those templates are I see on people's userpages, to send to folks who are having a bad day; but I'm not in a Hallmark-card kind of mood anyway. Listen: You and Riana really tried to do a good thing, and I'm sure you're getting a fair amount of crap (or at least "told you so"s)--but I just wanted to say, thank you for trying. People can say what they want and quote acronyms til they're blue, but the sad fact is, WP:ABF is way more commonly-observed than WP:AGF--and you two clearly AGF'ed WAY beyond the call of duty. I saw the length of one of those subpages you were working on with him--that's a lot of time, and I'm sure you have one of those wacky non-Wikipedia things I keep hearing about....what's it called again? Oh yeah: a "life".
Short form (nearly impossible for me): You tried, and you were right to try; try not to let this make you TOO bitter, even though you'd have to be nearly superhuman not to feel a LITTLE bit jaded after all this. Keep your head up--your effort, at the very least, was appreciated. Gladys J Cortez04:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Seconded. None of this was your fault. If anybody tries to rub your nose in it, you have my permission to tell them to FOAD (though you're probably too nice a guy for that). Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you guys, it means a lot coming from two respected users, but I do share some of the blame for this – there were clearly very serious concerns raised even without the sock evidence and I should probably have stayed out of it and let the RfC run its course. I didn’t expect this. Obviously my prides been hit now, but it’s not the be all and end all – I’ll bounce back and I’ll take this as a learning curve. Thanks again – I appreciate the comments. Ryan Postlethwaite04:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, me too, Ryan. Yourself an Riana did a super job in trying to work with the guy and giving him every fair chance. Not your fault at all and just about everyone was carried along with this. You both did your utmost here - Alison❤04:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Cheers Alison, it's much appreciated - I guess assuming good faith is better than assuming bad faith. Thanks a lot for your efforts with doing the CU investigations, this wouldn't have been uncovered without your time and efforts. Ryan Postlethwaite04:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Quite agree with all of the above, Ryan and Riana. And I hope one of the lessons you will take with you is that the community stands behind your trying so hard with Archtransit. I have no doubt that you'd do it again for another editor or admin who needs a helping hand. (Okay, maybe not tomorrow...but in due time) --Risker (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Risker, it means a lot especially considering me and you haven’t always seen eye to eye on some issues, but please be aware, I always respect your opinion because a lot of thought goes into it. I will most probably offer to mentor people in the future – it’s (unfortunately!?) in my nature, but as I said above, it’s a learning curve for me and I’ll take it into account when helping people in the future. Ryan Postlethwaite04:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Chin up, old bean. You did a damn fine job in your attempt to mentor Archtransit, in the best traditions of Wikipedia community-building. Few (none?) of the rest of us noticed the socking; there's no shame in your not catching it either. I promise you that not all mentees will turn out to be abusive sockpuppeteers! Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow, what can I say? You took a lot of crap from Arch and yet I still tried to defend him (although by the end, my patience was wearing thin). Thanks buddy and as always, if you have any concerns, by all means contact me – by email, IRC or on my talk – I respect my fellow wikipedians opinions, especially ones who do so much for the project. Ryan Postlethwaite04:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Chin up. You went above and beyond what any normal person should be expected to do. You're a really good admin/Wikipedian/person, and I'm sure you'll keep doing well. You and Riana assumed so much good faith it spilled out of my computer screen, and I really commend you for that. I also made a special lolcat for this, enjoy. (every bad situation can be solved by a lolcat.) Keilana|Parlez ici04:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Haha!! I love it! I guess it’s always good to bring humour into these things – we’d all get depressed otherwise. Like many of the above, I respect you a lot here, and your words are much appreciated here. On a side note, keep doing things as you have been – I know you get a lot of rubbish from SPA’s and socks, but all of us know you do a fantastic job. Ryan Postlethwaite04:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that I completely support your good faith effort to mentor this user. He obviously had many more people than you duped, and this should be looked upon as a positive aspect of your character, not a negative. I, for one, will look upon you with greater respect as a result of the entire incident. If you do need a good laugh (and you probably do), read Wikipedia:Village stocks. At worst, you could add yourself there for catharsis purposes. I would consider that "punishment" enough. Good day to you (and to Riana, these comments apply to her as well), and remember, no one thinks less of you over this... --Jayron32.talk.contribs06:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Though I ended up opposing mentorship at the RfC, and was on the wrong end of some of AT's abuses, you're without blame here. You tried, and it didn't work out. There's something admirable in what you and Riana tried to do, even if I didn't think it would work out. You both deserve kudos, not criticism. And if I ever decide to pursue adminship, you and Riana will definitely be on the shortlist of administrators whom I respect enough to ask for coaching, along with users like Newyorkbrad, WjBScribe, and a few others. You're a credit to this project. BellwetherBC15:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I came here to thank you for your awesome job of AGF. No one had seen this coming. I was a fairly strong advocate of him. I worked with Arch a lot at DYK before he became an admin it this whole incident is a complete shock. Now we can see why he had did such unusual things. There was no way that anyone would have any faith in what he did after the truth was found out, so the community ban was appropriate. You should hold your head up REAL HIGH for your effort! Royalbroil19:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Bleargh
Hey Ryan, ta for the heads-up, I haven't had a chance to read up on AN yet but I'm doing so now. I just read the ban proposal and while that's understandable, I'm tending towards not endorsing - his article work has been fine so far. I'm thinking what took place with Qst worked out very well - RfA ban, civility parole (though that's not a huge problem here), perhaps a ban from project space, and naturally to stick to one account and one account only. As we know this worked out well with Qst and he's an absolutely delightful chap now. What do you think?
Anyway, we gave it a shot, we probably look pretty silly, but everyone deserves one last chance, I guess. Hope you get better, I feel a bit like my eyes are about to explode! :s Not very pleasant! lol ~ Riana ⁂06:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think either of you look silly at all. Assuming good faith is an editing mode, a necessary attitude, it doesn't mean you're gullible or naïve. You may "assume good faith" against your gut feeling and even against better judgment. Probably there were people who had suspicions early on, but no one could know for sure. Both of you chose a commendable stance and course of action. The only one who looks silly is the person who invested all this time and mental energy into elaborate and pointless confusion and sockpuppeteering. ---Sluzzelintalk08:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I had previously spoken on behalf of Arch, requesting that people not be too hard on him in his early sysop decisions - well, I was wrong and they were right. One of the benefits of age is the realisation that being made to look silly is part of the human condition... I respect that you were prepared to AGF, and then prepared to hold your hand up when you realised you had been gamed.
Speaking of gamed, Arch contacted me by email asking if I would be a member of a private review group advising him - and I agreed. I commented that I thought you would be a good mentor, but was willing to help him when requested. It seems that things changed before he could use my services! If you wish I will forward our mails (because my caveat allows me to do that), but I suspect you would prefer this thing to fade away.
A tag has been placed on Template:UsernameGuidance requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully with 40 supports, 13 opposes, and 4 neutrals. For those of you who supported my RFA, I greatly appreciate it. For those who did not, I'm also thankful for your constructive criticism. If you need some advice or have some pointers for me, you know where to reach me! A special thank you to Majorly for all his time and effort he has placed in my nomination. Once again, thank you all for your helpful comments. Now off to new admin school! Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk01:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Request for comment on main page deletion incident
As you made an edit to the incident listed in the Administrators notice board, it is requested that you confirm the details of the incident here (section 1.1.2)
This is as the incident is used as the basis of an argument and needs to be confirm by persons familar with the event
From my perspective ScienceApolosist would be better off if he refused to communicate on talk pages except to suggest that anyone who wants his opinion should open their email so he can respond to their queries in private without the fear of administrative scrutiny. I too was unaware that forwarding is a no no. Can you please point me to the policy that forbids forwarding and deals with privacy issues in general.
I think that there may be a vendetta going on against SA. If there is it should be nipped in the bud before it polarizes admins to the point that they are at war with one another on a large scale basis . Any insights you can offer pursant to my comments wil be appreciated. : Albion moonlight (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I'm sure, I had a CU run on him after he openly admitted it to me privately. There's more than you think to it, but the privacy policy means it can't be released. Ryan Postlethwaite00:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh heck. And here I was admiring this bright and shiny [1]. Ah well, I may yet learn that some of my best friends are sockpuppets. JNW (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, it seems likely that he attempted to start afresh with a good account, but you really can't edit if you've been blocked indef for harassment on a differenct account. Ryan Postlethwaite01:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what to say, hard to believe it's true, but with Huggle, any user can increase their edit rate. he also gave me a [2].
He came onto IRC to complain about an admin who had emailed him. He then PMd me, and when he did that, I automatically get his IP. As part of the complaint, he had to tell me the full story of his accounts and when he told me he was EpicFlame, I passed the information to a checkuser who confirmed I had been speaking to Party (by the IP that I had) and that party and EpicFlame was the same person. Ryan Postlethwaite02:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I had no doubt as to the correctness of your action, but your explanation is appreciated all the same. Thanks and cheers, JNW (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It was common Knowledge on IRC who Party was, just that no admin dared to block him till Ryan the mighty showed up :p ..--Cometstyles05:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ryan. Possibly you can answer a question regarding the edits which prompted my request for page protection: Was the spate of vandalism to Party's talk page self-inflected, or did they come from another IP vandal? Thanks for your help, JNW (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I originally couldn't answer that, but given a checkuser has tagged his IPs now as socks, yeah it was him vandalising his own talk page for no reason at all - that was one of the reasons I didn't just allow him to carry on editing even though I knew was a reincarnation of a blocked editor. The behaviour was strange to say the least. If you check out Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of EpicFlame, you'll see he's created quite a few more socks. Ryan Postlethwaite21:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I suspected as much after the fact. The one thing chronic vandals have in common with many good-faith contributors is the desire to be recognized. Thanks again, JNW (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd be interested to know how you decided to keep the above as in its afd debate two voted for delete, a third commented non notable and two said keep? Hardly conclusive, if anything a delete! Paste (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There was certainly no consensus to delete the article, and consensus isn't based on numbers. Given that half way through the page was cleaned up, and the only further comment after the debate was relisted was a keep, I believe the consensus went that way. I could of gone with no consensus, but I believe it was erring more on the side of keep. Ryan Postlethwaite18:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It's just that the template isn't all that friendly and really isn't that helpful for most of the time.
What's "friendliness" (or "unfriendliness") got to do with the tag and how on earth ISN'T it helpful or is unhelpful? --Calton | Talk18:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Because we're dealing with new users, and telling them that their talk page means nothing isn't really the best way to go about dealing with these people. It's just reduntant to {{UsernameBlocked}} if they get blocked, or if they don't, then the userpage shouldn't be deleted. By all means report users, but don't preemtivly judge whether or not an admin is going to take up your request - as I said, if a user isn't blocked, the page shouldn't be deleted. Ryan Postlethwaite18:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
My Oppose
Just wanted to talk man to man. I feel that the controversal re-syop was an outrageous abuse of comunity input. It's not personal. It's nothing to do with any of your actions outside this issue. But you've allowed yourself to become a posterchild for support of this action and not agressively approached the issue as a wrong done to the community. That's where I stand.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You're certainly entitled to oppose me for that - and I agree it's legitimate. The thing with the support for WJB's action is that I understand his explanation (and hence support it), but if I were a bureaucrat myself, I would have acted the minute it was suspended to instigate a chat between other bureaucrats to determine the consensus as a group - I'd have then expressed my opinion that ^demon should not have been promoted, and I'd probably have been supported in that if there were some more bureaucrats active. If there was a crat chat, it would have failed, and I certainly would have said it should fail. That said, I don't see the need now for me to start complaining - let's move forward and respect that this was handled wrong so we can learn from those mistakes and put them right in the future. Ryan Postlethwaite04:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I respect your response. I have a strong reaction to the issue. I see your side. Early returns show i'm in the minority on opposing for this issue. I respect a lot of your actions and hope there will be no hard feelings if i leave this oppose on a strong held principle.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
No hard feelings whatsoever - you've got an opinion which I completely understand - it was inevitable in this RfB. I look forward to working with you in the future, I think we'll actually agree on a lot of issues. I appreciate your opinions in my RfB, the whole situation is something that I've put a lot of thought into before I nominated myself, and I'll certainly work on your concerns. Ryan Postlethwaite04:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
i actually needed it because now due to overgrowing tensions in my personal life i won't be able to write articles as i once used to. now i can only maintain those. also i might take some wikibreaks also. in order to keep the articles maintained i needed this utility. i won't misusing it. and you can have a look at my record too. i haven't claimed any worthy edit as vandalism. would you like to know one thing, when i was new here many admins. and users claimed my edits as vandalism though were not; but yes they were uncited (but neutral). anyway if you don't want to give this utility then please don't give reasons which are unable to get digested. thanks a lot for your cooperation. Sushant gupta (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course I don't mind answering :-) RfB standards are far higher than adminship and there really wasn't a chance that this was going to pass - there really wasn't any point in spending any more time on it. Ryan Postlethwaite06:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It's your call, of course, but when you closed, it had been up for a bit more than three hours, and the tally was 86.5%. The last bureaucrat I voted for was accepted with 86.7% support votes. Do RFBs usually get their strongest boost in the beginning, and slide downhill afterwards? (Serious question, I noticed this trend with some of the arbcom candidacies). ---Sluzzelintalk06:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Basically yeah - it's the same with RfA's. Generally speaking, a lot of people jump on board to support at first (there's nothing wrong with that of course) because they have no reason to oppose the candidate. The thing with opposing is that generally speaking you have to put up a rationale, and that can mean hunting for diffs or threads - it takes time, hence the lag. Also, when opposes mount up, people tend to agree with them. The general accepted level of support for an RfB is 90%, and given that mine was lagging at such an early stage, it was very unlikely to succeed, hence why I withdrew rather than spend further time on it. There were no hard feelings over it at all - just no point in continuing it further. Ryan Postlethwaite06:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Well all I can say is that you can count on my Support when you run again (notice when, not if). Just don't delete the Main Page! MBisanztalk06:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
For a RFB cantidate, wouldn't the suggestion be "Don't promote Willy-on-wheels"? :) Seriously, however, I wanted to put on-wiki what I told ya elsewhere, Ryan. Your RFB ran for less than 24h, please, give it at least that! Supports, and, opposes come in groups :) My RFA for instance, didn't even reach "promotion" levels, until the last few days/hours. I really think you'd do well in the position, and, that we always need more active 'crats. SQLQuery me!06:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
So I didn't even get a chance to comment? Created and pulled whilst I slept? Never mind - next time my man, next time. Pedro : Chat 08:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Tough one, Ryan. It's too bad that some still have a bee-in-the-bonnet about Weber, which seems to have generated a majority of your opposes. I don't think he deserves indef or anything, but it seems a bit silly to oppose based solely (or mostly, even) on that. Better luck next time, and I'd like notification if you choose to run again, as I'll be supporting. BellwetherBC14:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanksall for your kind words - certainly no point in beating myself up about it, if look on the bright side, it means I don't have any extra work to do :-) Ryan Postlethwaite17:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
saw you removed the semi that was placed on Magic Kingdom. That's fine, but if you can then help with the edit war over what constitutes "near Orlando" vs "in Orlando city limits", then we'll take whatever recommendation you can provide. Basically, it's affecting practically every single Walt Disney World-related page, Sea World, and various other orlando-area attractions pages. Nutshell: one user insists that the Orlando category, which clearly states that it encompasses the surrounding area, is only for the Orlando city limits... which goes against what the category was defined as back in 2007. I can provide the links if you need them. SpikeJones (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you aware that these edits are being made by someone who has been blocked several times from at least 12 different accounts or IPs for disruption and personal attacks? Please see the sock puppet log before dismissing this as an edit war. The person's edits are also being discussed at WP:ANI. Whether you think the geography dispute is vandalism or not, this is a persistent pattern of abuse from a combative contributor who rejects the community's consensus and repeatedly insults people. 72.37.171.164 (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
We are certainly open to any assistance you can provide, but Spike and the above user are both correct. Semi-protection seems to be the best defense against this form of attack. We have asked time and again to bring his point of view to the talk pages so they can be vetted and discussed. Each time, the user resorts to name-calling and malicious posts and edit notes. The IP is blocked, which only causes the user to come back with a new IP mere minutes after the last one gets blocked. I do hope we can get this resolved soon, so more productive edits can be made to the articles. Thank you again for your attention and guidance. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I've actually blocked the IP already for making personal attacks, but i do understand the disruption. A range block is being discussed on AN/I - we'll see what comes of it. Ryan Postlethwaite21:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Have you got a client now? You just need to log onto freenode with your nick (Pedro4 I think it was) and the type /msg NickServ IDENTIFY (your password)..... followed by /join #wikipedia-en and /chanserv INIVTE #wikipedia-en-admins - does that help? Ryan Postlethwaite21:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Nah, still have to use the java.freenode thing. But it refuses to even let me into #wikipedia (let alone en-admin), won't recognise my password etc etc -I guess it's easire not to bother or find an IRC client that's a portbale app. Never mind! Pedro : Chat 21:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
That are often problems with the java program - best bet is either try again in a few hours, or get a client - a client would be the best option. Personally, I wish IRC wasn't so bloody complicated - I don't know what I'm doing myself half the time! Ryan Postlethwaite21:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
"I don't know what I'm doing myself half the time" :o! I thought you were a channel op. ;) Did I come here for something? Ah yes... Your RfB: I'm sorry how it panned out, I think you're one of the best guys for the job. Maybe next time? (There will be one, right?) Best wishes, AGK (contact) 23:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Any clue about notability criteria for computer games?
Hi Ryan, I'm looking for the guideline for these but can't find it. Any opinion as to whether I could find an acceptable reason to prod (or whatever the right process is) this and others like it:- Marvel Super Heroes vs. Street Fighter? Just happened to land on it via hitting the random button. SpecialRandom (Merkinsmum) 20:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Merkinsmum. Given there's no specific notability criteria for games, you have to revert to Wikipedia:Notability which is the general criteria. With respect to prodding it - games generally get prod tags quickly removed, so the best way to go would be through AfD - I'm not too sure which way it would go. We have a lot of game fans here, and they like to see these types of articles kept. The key to it is that the article should have reliable independent sources that discuss the game. I don't see any at present, but it could be worth taking a look to see if some could be found before AfDing it. Ryan Postlethwaite20:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to draw your attention to Support !vote #8 and Animum's reply to Jmlk17's oppose !vote, as I'm unsure if you'd noticed them being added and they directly impact your opposition rationale. If you had already noted both and felt that they deserved no further consideration, please accept my apologies, along with my thanks for your assistance in identifying my shortcomings as an editor, and remove this notice. Jouster (whisper) 20:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
re: post on my talk page
I would like to contest the warning you made on my talk page. For the last 3 or 4 days I have been reverting edits by various IP addresses on articles about attractions near Orlando, Florida. (e.g. various rides at Disney World, Magic Kingdom, Seaworld, EPCOT, etc.) All the IPs follow the same pattern: i.e. they come on the scene and change all these articles' categories from "in Orlando" to "in Orange County". They also change some articles to say the attractions are in Bay something rather than where they actually are. They also sometimes change them to say that the attraction is northeast, south, southwest, etc. of Orlando rather than just saying they are near Orlando. As I said, I have reverted them for at least 3 days with no comments. Why am I being warned now?
I assumed the person (by the way, it is the same person, as each time he appears he makes edits faster than I can revert them, and I am using huggle, which, if you didn't already know, can rival Cluebot in speed) is a vandal because he makes edits so blindingly fast, and when someone else reverted them with an edit summary that said something like "rv per consensus on location reached on talk page", he simply said something along the line of "I don't care what your consensus says. They are not in Orlando".
I'm sorry about that. I was mad and I wasn't thinking straight. In any case, as I did not make it clear before, I will respect the ruling on the fact that that guy is not a vandal, but I would still like you to remove the warning form my page, as I acted under the assumption that that guy was a vandal, and I was not trying to edit war. J.delanoygabsadds20:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to remove the warning, obviously you can if you want, but it still stands. You were edit warring, and hopefully you've been made aware of it now. With respect to the IP, he's blocked now for making personal attacks so he shouldn't be bothering you for 24 hours. That said, please don't revert again. Ryan Postlethwaite20:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
In defense of user J.delanoy, his reverts were in line with the same "trying to restore from vandalized pages" edits that many of us have been dealing with for the past week. As I said previously, I can provide all the backlinks to show you the history of where all this came from if you'd like, or put you in touch with other admins who are aware of the situation. SpikeJones (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This may be a bit late, (does "better late than never" count here?) but I definitely owe you an apology for my reaction above. I know that you acted correctly, as I was effectively edit-warring, even though I thought I was reverting a repeat vandal. I did not assume good faith when you warned me. I immediately assumed you were attacking me and I reacted based on that false assumption. I know it took me a while to come to my senses, but can you forgive me? J.delanoygabsadds19:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Given your extensive experience in mananging disruptive users, I'd appreciate your feedback on this RfC. I'm trying to decide between three options: i) List the RfC at AN/I and request more input, ii) Drop it as not meeting the threshold for disruption, iii) push the matter up to RfAR. Ronnotel (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Proxies
I'm told your something of an expert on anon. proxies and open proxies. This traceroute ends in a weird firewall [4]. If its not an open proxy, is it an anonymizer or other thing that could switch IPs/conceal location? O and its on this spamlist, whatever that means. MBisanztalk02:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
May uninvolved users post statements at RFAR? Would you mind if I posted a statement on some of the questionable admin actions I've seen occur? MBisanztalk06:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, anyone can post at RfArbs - in fact, some of the most useful comments are from uninvolved users as they see disputes from a different perspective. Ryan Postlethwaite06:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Added my piece. Isn't nearly as extensive as it would have been if I had not been entertaining today while others beat me to the main points. MBisanztalk05:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This edit [5] he made to the header makes me wonder if he isn't trying to encourage blocked users to not bother contacting the blocking admin. Without the RFAR, I'd probably have ignored it, but I figure that not that many people watch that random page. MBisanztalk02:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Ryan, at the bottom of the BC discussion page there is a section about next steps, including whether and when the bot should be unblocked and if the consensus is that Betacommand's membership in BAG should be suspended. In some ways, it could be considered that requiring BAG approval for a BetacommandBot task is redundant, since he is a member and approval requires only one member. At any rate, so far the commenters have advocating unblocking the bot but I am curious as to your criteria for unblock (as the blocker). Avruch T 23:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:AN
Saw your latest comment (23:54) and wondered whether it should stay, based on this claiming RTV. Which means she doesn't want them linked. Just wondering —αlεx•mullεr00:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realise that - wouldn't have posted that if I'd have known. That said, RtV means you leave, not to cover your previous tracks. If someone excercises their right to vanish, they have to right to edit again. Ryan Postlethwaite00:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that makes more sense. From some of the requests at WP:CHU to random usernames I was under the impression that vanishing was so that other people couldn't follow / see your contributions quite so easily. Though of course there are logs scattered all over the place (including meta) —αlεx•mullεr00:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you can help me on this one
So I got in over my head with the cleaning-up-the-BCBot-redlink-category thing, and though I've backed away from THAT mess, I would like to start doing cleanup on Wanted Categories. I find a lot of sockpuppet-based redlinks--usually "suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of xxx" or "Wikipedia sockpuppets of www"--and they look like a decent starting point for a n00b like myself. But I'm a little confused/conflicted as to propriety in some cases...
Here's a concrete example. There's a wanted-cat for "Wikipedia sockpuppets of RainierH"--redlinked, but containing 3 members. Under "Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets", we have "Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of RainierH"--a blue link, yes, but with zero members. Since I have no idea whether these are suspected or confirmed, would it be out of pocket for me to move the 3 members of the redlinked cat to the bluelinked "suspected" cat? Is an opposite move (moving members of a redlinked "suspected" cat to a bluelinked "confirmed" cat) any different, or is it (as I would guess) frowned upon??
Anything else I should know before I wade into the mire?? Thanks in advance for your help...
(PS: Could that repetitive guy in the BCBot discussion have been any MORE annoying??) Gladys J Cortez04:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
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) 08:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.
Thanks for posting the arbitration request. Everybody kept saying somebody should just take it to arbcom; you had the initiative to actually do it, simplifying the process and reducing the amount of chatter. I think it was correct to skip the RfC. In effect, the AN/I thread was the RfC, as I was about to say there when I saw your post re the arbreq. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The situation has changed. See User talk:Mikkalai and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Ignore all rules. I would like to ask you to consider withdrawing the arbitration request. If you choose not to, I would like to ask you to consider whether there is anything productive you can add to the thread I just mentioned, perhaps along the lines of explaining what is still insufficient about the current situation in your opinion. Thanks! --Coppertwig (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Ryan, since you obviously know cat policy (otherwise you wouldn't have blocked BCB over it). How is this edit [6] from this morning any different than the edits from before (ie unapproved, non-UCFD, persons-category edits)? MBisanztalk16:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Apparently this was done under speedy UFCD policies. Still seems like a change to the worse grammar wording. MBisanztalk16:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Why do the Las Vegas area casinos say they are in Paradise, Nevada?
I believe the current people who are discussing this are incapable of coming to an amicable solution so hopefully some new, neutral eyes will help solve this. I suggest all parties step away and let new people solve this. Ryan Postlethwaite02:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Kim, Ryan is being reasonable. I think he's completely wrong and his actions will probably make the situation worse, but at least he's being reasonable.
Listing IAR for RFC will probably make the situation worse, but I understand why he'd consider it sensible to do so.
Ryan seems to have observed this matter with a detached point-of-view, which is a good thing, and he hasn't made any edits to WP:IAR, so his opinion is valuable, I suppose. ☯Zenwhat (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
"We need outside views to determine whether or not the community (not just the very small number of users participating here) want a change."
Your stated goals are at odds with your means. It is not possible to obtain that information in a meaningful way using RFC. (you will get information, but it will be heavily distorted by a 50/50 split due to the way expanding community scope works. This is similar to the effect that killed the original WP:ATT proposal, for instance.) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, there's one way in which this might resolve itself differently, if we are very very lucky. At some number of people joining the conversation at some speed, we might get my preferred outcome instead. Note that this has absolutely nothing to do with consensus or will of the community, just with pure timing. *sigh*
I tend to agree with Kim. I believe that inviting a surge of new opinions will not help reach consensus. What will help reach consensus is distilling our visions for the page and trying to find common ground. This is done through cooperation, not through mediation and not through outsiders doing the exact same things we've already been doing. - Chardish (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Meh, you know what, we can all come back to IAR in a month or two and pick up whatever pieces are left then. Let folks find out the hard way. And who knows, I have been wrong before... once or twice... the page *might* somehow magically turn all peaceful. At any rate I've taken the page off my watchlist for now. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Did something change, and RfC is no longer a way for resolving a dispute between a small group of people? Seeking wider community input will tell you what the rest of the community wants in the policy. Since the policy isn't the province of a small number of editors alone, and isn't a single obscure article that we can feel free to ignore if we want (little pun there)... Wider commmunity input can only bring value, not take it away. Avruch T 16:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
RFC has never been truly suitable for any purpose, afaicr. If you can provide examples where rfc wasn't divisive, and has lead to some amount of community reconciliation, I'd be quite surprised (but willing to reconsider my opinion). --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
You're saying that no RfC, conduct or content or policy, has ever been constructive for any purpose at all? Whether supporting reconciliation, determining consensus, giving people a place to argue outside of noticeboards/article talk pages, etc.? I realize you've been around for awhile, but I don't think your opinion is a very common one. Avruch T 19:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Well regardless of what opinions people hold, could you demonstrate an RFC that went really really well? It might be worth studying, if even just for that reason. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Well there was the anon new page creation RfC and the IRC RfC have all gone well. Many policy RfCs take on complex matters and often fail because there are too many avenues to go down. This is different however given that what needs to be decided is whether or not people want any change at all. Because of that point, it is not for you guys who have been arguing over this point for months to decide – it’s the communities job and hence why RfC to give greater input is essential. Ryan Postlethwaite20:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to look at the anon new page creation and irc rfc, and specifically at the timing. Did things blow up before these RFCs and did they calm things down (if temporarily), or did things blow up after each of these? Can you link? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Conduct RfC's aren't always very productive, although they are handy in demonstrating consensus for the belief that a serious problem exists. Note the Archtransit and R.fiend RfC's as the most recent admin conduct examples. In neither case did a sanction result directly from the RfC, but I think its fair to say that the outcome could have been significantly different without it (excepting the discovery of sockpuppetry on Archtransit's part). Content and policy RfCs are usually pretty useful... They don't stick out in my head, since they are generally what I expect, so I don't have specific ones to cite. Avruch T 20:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This is an inappropriate MFD. I deleted the template and asked zenwhat to get a clue before he started the page itself. I guess our edits crossed. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah right, I just readded the template because I stepped on MfD and it was still live. Not sure I believe it is an inappropriate MfD, but that's a different story..... Ryan Postlethwaite02:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Well since it seems I've lost the race to the courthouse door, can you help me figure out how to present evidence like BCB's 1000 edits to the mainpage or all the de-cats? MBisanztalk02:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
What you can do get the edits up in his or his bots contributions, and simply link to the contributions page showing all the edits - that seems like the most logical way to do it. Linking to discussion about each incident is also a way to do it - either will help you get your point across. Hope that helps! Ryan Postlethwaite02:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't talked to you about Linus Pauling for a while. I got carried away with another article. That article is now at FAC, so I can now direct my focus back to Pauling. I've already made some edits to the article. I just wanted to check up on what you were doing. Any progress in reading through the biography that you were going to get from the library? Do you think you could start referencing in the near future? Best, Nishkid64(Make articles, not love)05:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey Nish - perfect timing, I was just about to email you because I've finished my exams and hopefully I'll have some free time now. Will crack on with it this week. Ryan Postlethwaite19:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Ryan, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats. I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight. I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community. I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :) I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂11:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
That's it, you get de-sysoped for being far too wasted to edit... No, but seriously cheersx10 for your support at my recent RfB which passed successfully with (133/4/3). Muchos gracias.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Something else about Mikkalai
Hello again, Ryan! There's something else that I'd like to tell about Mikka, all of which relate to the Smosh article (they're a duo of two college students who are popular on YouTube):
1. Before and after the article got fully protected, there was a "YouTube chronology" section which detailed the various videos/films they released on YouTube. He kept removing the section and another about their alternate account, IanH. There has been some discussion about why it was removed, and it can be found on this link here. User:Orangemike says that Mikkalai did the right thing when he removed the section(s), and personally, to me, I think it should be there (Well, I really don't know, but that's my opinion). Mikka also says that the chronology list is "unreferenced fancruft". How could it be fancruft when those are the actual videos? It may be unreferenced, but their videos can be found on their profile. Their videos are found here.
2. A new section was added called "Formation", and when I didn't see any sources, I added the {{unreferenced section}} tag under that, and then Mikkalai removed it (I was okay with that) but with the edit summary "rmv unreferenced promotion piece" in it. How is it promoting something? I'm confused about what he might be doing in association with the Smosh article.
And although the proposal of his vow of silence is, and might be, over, I'm still posting this message on your discussion page beceause:
1) I don't want to leave this on his talk page, cause sooner or later, he'll revert it, which he still does w/ other users' messages.
2) You were involved in Mikkalai's incident discussion on WP:AN/I and his Request for Arbitration.
Yeah sorry. But, no. Maybe you've heard of freedom of speech. There is nothing official about the name, nothing more than Ryan Postlewaite or Adolf Hitler. And a little FYI, it doesn't violate any Wiki policies. But intentional infliction of emotional distress does violate all 50 states' laws. So respectfully, I decline your suggestion sir.InvisibleBureaucrat (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)666
Request to Vanish
I'm not sure your reasons for wanting to change all the links, but you've been politely asked to stop. Please do not continue to make these edits without a consensus that you can (which at present there isn't) or you will be blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite02:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, but my problem is I can't share the fullness of my reasons in a public forum. What can I do? I do not believe I am able to protect my privacy by making a convincing argument in public as to my situation, so I can't participate in any discusison of consensus, and I can't find anybody actually citing any policy or other developed pages on this. I did find WP:UNC and WP:RTV which do seem to indicate my actions are accepted, but I really don't know how to discuss this when I don't feel I can participate further. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is, there are no need for these edits and they clog up recent changes and waste server space. If you want to email me privately and tell me your reasons, then that's fine - but you are only drawing attention to your usernames by these edits. If this was a real life name, I could understand, but it's not. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, you may believe there is no need for these edits, but I do believe there is. If it's causing some problem with recent changes, I can respect that, but I don't know what to do about it. Would it be better if I made the changes slower? I could have done that, I suppose. Not so much with regards to server space, that, I believe is not a real issue. Anyway, since you have offered to discuss this through e-mail, is there some reason I should discuss it with you? I have seen your name around, but I must confess to not knowing much more thna that. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think I'm trusted here and also trustwrothy. I'm a member of the mediation committee and OTRS where I deal with privacy issues a lot. I'd like to help you, but to do that, I need to know what the issues are that makes a internet identity an issue for you to have to change all your singatures. There's only consensus to do this with real life name changes, not the way you have been. The edits are disruptive because you are changing many pages, including archives which means many people are going to be checking these to see what you're doing (which also defeats the object of it). Email me if you want to elaborate futher, but please don't make any more changes. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Ryan, has this user emailed you regarding this? Have you had correspondence with him regarding this? If so I'm not asking for an explanation as to why he is doing it if it has a genuine reason, as you are honour bound to respect his privacy if there is actually an issue. All I ask is are his reasons valid and should he, in your opinion, be allowed to continue this string of disruptive editing, or should he be stopped or even rolled back? I respect your decision in this matter with no explanation, just wish to know if it is valid so I can then ignore their future edits. Canterbury Tailtalk11:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for a reply to me confirming his involvement in OTRS, but I ask that if you have any further discussion regarding this, you keep it private. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Lradrama 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.
So, last night I was not having one of my smarter days, and while attempting to get a hold of text from a deleted article, I apparently vandalized a userpage. I went back and re-read the how-to on getting articles back, figured out how to do it properly, and felt like the biggest idiot in the world for what I did. I was given my first and last warning for this simple act of stupidity, and I guess I was just hoping that explaining myself would allow me a kinder warning. I still feel ridiculously stupid, and part of me doesn't even want to admit to my stupidity. I'd almost rather pretend I'm some smart kid trying to doom Wikipedia, but I'm not, and I'd really like to be part of Wikipedia as long as possible. I'm really sorry for being such an idiot, and I really hope you'll give me another chance. Pers phne (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ryan. Just noting that I've lifted the block on Naerii's account: she has agreed to refrain from disruptively editing, and hence the block is effectively redundant—it has achieved its goal of minimising disruption. Hopefully all the folks who commented there will realise my original intentions: to stir up discussion from Naerii's end of the court, and providing something of a reality check for her—that she will be blocked if the trolling continues. On a related note, thanks for all your comments: they were very insightful and level-headed, and I appreciate that in an unblock discussion :) All the best, AGK§19:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Smile!
Here's a laughing Orangutan for you! Laughing Orangutans somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this one 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! Acalamari02:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Return
I don't know if you remember me but it's been over 8 months since I edited. Although I've been reading pages, it comes as quite a shock to see a moderator sink so low. Perhaps this user's account might have been operated by a good user and then password was later handed over to a friend else or compromised. Even if I am wrong, I appeciate your efforts to take people like this under your wing before it's too late. BuickCenturyDriver (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This kind of closure should become much more common. If it does, and once it is realized that this could have been done without any AfD at all, and then, if conflict arose, resolved by ordinary, lower-level WP:DR, which is highly efficient at those levels, we may see many fewer AfDs. Very often, a topic which is not sufficiently notable for an article is notable enough for an appropriate mention within another article, and redirect is extremely efficient, destroying no history, leaving all the work of prior editors intact for recovery without any further administrative attention.
Normally, in fact, if redirection isn't appropriate, the article would be eligible for speedy deletion, which is also efficient unless contested, and if it is going to be contested, usually, by anyone other than sock puppets or COI editors or, possibly, some knee-jerk inclusionists, who don't seem to be going after legitimate speedies, since they know they will lose, this could almost eliminate AfD as a common process, thus freeing up quite a bit of editor time.
I went to the article per a list of AfDs on an inclusionist user's page, the list which was subject to an ANI report. I was glad to see this resolved in a way that, I expect, would, or at least should, enjoy true consensus. What a concept! Consensus, meaning everyone or nearly everyone, agrees or is at least willing to accept an outcome.
With reference to the above tip and the associated discussion at WP:ANI and your recent comment, could you please clarify we clearly don't have your attention ? In my view you do have our attention but we disagree. You are unable to garner up support to outweigh Australian collaborators - it shouldn't be too hard we only represent 2% of the world's population - possibly slightly overrepresented on wikipedia but not so that we can hold sway at all costs.
If you wish, find a place to escalate the topic of project banners on article pages and take it there to seek consensus. I would suggest WP:ANI is not the place - this is hardly an incident but a matter of long running custom (from 2004 in the case of the Australian project) that you with a very few others are trying to overthrow. Not clear to me why. Note that the custom is implemented and upheld by quite a few admins (admittedly all Australians but since it is an Australian collaboration hardly surprising).
Note also by the way that the article which is the current collaboration is a sensitive one for me at least and there has been plenty of trouble (of a different sort) before ( ie Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors ). I was very pleased to see it chosen as a collaboration. I believe the more input from the more editors the better and it will indeed improve as a result.
I think (and I believe I am not alone) the tags are important to let the reader know what is going on as well of course to invite the reader to edit not just read - especially if they disagree (unless they want to add in stuff about an undocumented massacre).
Australian collaborations are longstanding and have resulted in significant improvements to many articles - see for more history on the collaborations see Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight/History and associated archives which documents successful nominations and the changes after it has been collaborated on with the number of editors, edits and the diff from before to after.--Matildatalk01:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi you said As it states in the guideline already ... - sorry I have missed it, but which guideline are you referring to. Thanks--Matildatalk20:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It says it at Wikipedia:Template namespace#usage - "Templates used in pages from the article namespace provide information to help readers. These can include navigation aids, or warnings that content is sub-standard. Templates that provide information only of service to editors belong on an article's talk page." The Australian collabortation template provides information only of service to editors so belongs on the talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite21:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Another part to NAS
Hi Ryan, I was wondering, do you think it would be a good idea to write a new part of NAS regarding giving/removing rollback? I'd be happy to write it, but I was wondering whether it would be best to wait regarding the coming poll on the rollback feature, and see how that turns out first. Acalamari16:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey Acalamari - sounds like a good idea, go ahead and write it. Probably best using an existing account that's used in NAS. Just out of interest, is there going to be a poll? I was under the impression that it would only happen if there were concerns at the end of the 3 month period. Ryan Postlethwaite16:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure that there was supposed to be a poll sometime next month to see whether the community would be happy with the rollback feature or not, whether there were concerns or not. However, I may be wrong so we'll have to see what happens. In the meantime, I'll write that new part of NAS. Thanks! Acalamari16:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I've seen the Poll mentioned once or twice in March as something would just happen and I've given thought to writing a Signpost piece discussing how it turns out that after all the fuss, Rollback wasn't such a big deal. I'm hoping a poll can be avoided as more drama. O, also I have the list of all the people who commented in the last 2 polls, so if there is a new one, just let me know, and they'll all get a nice orange bar. MBisanztalk18:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It would seem that turning 22 last week has moved me into full-scale dementia. I looked where I thought I saw the conversation, and it wasn't there. MBisanztalk19:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
You couldn't just do a simple RFC and canvass the hell out of it! :). How an I supposed to reduce my vote of Reform to make more like RfA while Keeping BAG technical oversight and Increasing enforcement of WP:BOT? I don't want to give the closing admin a headache. MBisanztalk05:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a note.... there's discussion underway on BRFA to change procedure and policy one step at a time, and I've got a list of collected ideas on User:Martinp23/BAG todo. Feel free to contribute constructively through those means. Martinp2311:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding T1
Hiya,
I appreciate the suggestion, and can see your good intentions behind it, but that particular issue has been - and perhaps still is - an especially sore spot for some Wikipedians. There were disagreements about the "broadness" of the terms "divisive and inflammatory" which lead to a real lot of time-wasting drama. A compromise (WP:UBM) won out in the end (by avoiding the "can userbox X exist or not in templatespace" issue) and the modified T1 became necessary when that can of worms was threatened to be re-opened by applying T1 it to userspace. I can provide you with a handful of artifacts from the time-period if you want to. Best wishes, CharonX/talk10:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I honestly didn't realise. I was jsut a little surprised when I read the intracacies of it and realised it was only template namepace. Oh well, worth a shot and I didn't realise it had been debated before. Ryan Postlethwaite14:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Ryan! just reminding you that I was blocked on 21 February, 2008, I was also detwinkled and my rollback rights were removed. You said that you will rethink of granting me rollback again after a probation period of 3 weeks after the block. So please do think over it! Thanks! --SMSTalk17:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I see you took care of my IRC request. However, if I try to join #wikipedia-en-admins I get told "You need to be invited to that channel." Is there anything else that needs to be done? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 23:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Howcheng, yeah you need to type /cs INVITE #wikipedia-en-admins and then you should get an invite to join the channel. You haven't got your cloak yet so you can't just join as you would any other channel. Hope that helps, let me know if not. Ryan Postlethwaite23:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Even though my response to your post at Flo's talk may seem harsh (I tend to use the same words when I speak on- and off-record), I of course had no intention to delete your comment. This edit conflict glitches, with me not getting warned as I used to be, about the edit conflict with an intermediate edit, happened lately several times and I have no idea why this happened lately. Please accept my apology. --Irpen23:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course not. It was not harsh at all. And being harsh does not warrant removal. I get your joke :). Hopefully we don't need to go into this again. I am sure it was fully discussed yesterday at IRC with 1=2 preaching about his commitment to "civility" to an appreciative audience. I find it ironic that the Wikipedia's civility policemen are the ones least civil when speaking about other's in their absence at IRC. I guess it has to do with dignity but this is just guessing. Anyway, we can discuss IRC at another time and at another page. Reagrds, --Irpen00:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Insight
Could you, or if your involved, an uninvolved medcommer, provide some insight at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Martijn_Hoekstra#Neutral. Generally, I rarely agree with VigilancePrime, especially when he's as interested as to jump the opening of the RfA, but I trust Keeper's judgement to probably the same degree. I saw Martijn voted to keep the ACS article, but hasn't edited strongly in that area. Really confused on this one. MBisanztalk00:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand. I doubt mine and Guy's Neutral's will sink the RfA, so I'll probably ask some questions and either leave it or indent it so my Neutral doesn't count. MBisanztalk00:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for butting in here, but although Ryan can't disclose anything about any party in the mediation, I can make statements about myself. I am up for adminship afterall, and it is a very touchy subject, one that has the potential to damage wikipedias reputation. When I signed with agree, I opened the door to any questioning. I will not however make any statements about the other parties involved. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thats bizarre, Ryan's email worked last week when I sent him something, but now EmailUser shows as disabled for his account. MBisanztalk06:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Well he has displayed his email above your name, so its more "No one can e-mail you through Wikipedia". Now my question is why Ryan's emails keeping getting caught in my spam filter. MBisanztalk02:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Please unblock
This [8] was not uncivil. John254 has been obdurate in defending a nigh-on indefensible position, whereas SA has actually read the source in question; SA was simply challenging him to provide sources or drop it. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
You're behind the times, he was unblocked by Jehochman within 10 minutes of me blocking him. I've always thought of put up or shut up as being uncivil - there are better ways to express ones thoughts. It was just for that however - there was another diff that was an assuption of bad faith but I also took into account his edits from a few days ago that got him a block. I guess people see different expressions differently, but I wouldn't tell another editor to put up or shut up - guess I might be a little on the naive side with this. Ryan Postlethwaite22:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
and just for the record, I didn't block and run - after i blocked him my stupid dial up that I'm having to use stopped me being able to look up long pages such as AN and AE so I couldn't contribute to any of the later discussions. Ryan Postlethwaite22:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
A few months ago, you blocked a certain user for edit warring and attacking me personally on my talk page. Recently, this same user has been edit warring and personally attacking myself and other editors on an article again ( Barelwi ). When I reported it at WP:ANI, this user responded with the same exact personal attack you temporarily blocked them for. Right on the ANI report. I'm not even kidding. I was wondering if you could lend some help. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Btw, won't post it at ANI, (fear of Beans) but this one from the past made me laugh out loud ([9]) for its thoughtful distructiveness. NB Big Schlong award? --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hehe, I bet that pissed someone off!! :-) Some guy gave me the big schlong award - was quite chuffed with is so decided to keep it, I wonder how he got that so acurately! Ryan Postlethwaite
April Fools follow-up
Hi Ryan. Just letting you know about this, as it is a way up the thread and you might miss it otherwise. Also, I note that you said things are over now. Well, it is still April 1 where I am, even if people do remember or know that you are supposed to stop by mid-day (don't know how widespread that tradition is), so I think some wider discussion was still needed. I think at the least it has shown that the "forget about it" approach, while it might have worked here, wouldn't address the underlying issues. Carcharoth (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Oops. Wrong Ryan! Thanks for pointing this out and being so calm about it. I've struck out my post at ANI and apolgised. Will remove it altogether if you want me to. Carcharoth (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah thanks for the notification - I'll certainly comment on it. My concern is that we shouldn't enable it for all pages because we're going to lose a lot of useful additions, but there certainly are some which could use it. Not too impressed about my penis pic, I was quite a fan of it ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite22:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Ryan, Koala06 hasn't edited since Feb 15. Since the other 2 fellows have agreed to the mediation, maybe he should be dropped? I don't know all the mediation comm rules, medcab is a much more freewheeling place. MBisanztalk03:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
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) 21:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
What are you hoping to accomplish with the username policy?
I've been working for months to change the username policy, which is a very prominent way that experienced Wikipedians bite newbies by blocking them immediately over a policy they have presumably never seen. I'm trying to fix the parts that result in blocks being placed on newbies who have done nothing to harm Wikipedia, particularly the bit about "confusing usernames".
We're both administrators, but you're seen on many areas of Wikipedia and have a very authoritative voice, so it is a large hindrance that you oppose me at every turn. Whenever I encounter a long-standing Wikipedia dispute like this, I find it important and useful to find out why the other side is doing the things they are doing.
My goal is to get fewer good-faith newbies blocked. What's your goal? From your arguments on the page, it seems to be to make history pages look less confusing. But that doesn't seem to be at all on the same level. It certainly doesn't strike me as the kind of thing that can trump WP:AGF and WP:BITE.
I consider experienced Wikipedians to be intelligent people. If they are confused, they can usually unconfuse themselves with no problems. I don't see much harm to the encyclopedia coming from an established user being confused for a few moments on a history page. But good-faith newbies who get blocked, with very few exceptions, are just gone.
Huzzah! One less newbie to annoy and (even worse) confuse the regulars!
Okay, okay, that last part was a bit of a sarcastic straw man. But what is the real reason why you so strongly defend the status quo of newbie-blocking?
Although we generally disagree on the username policy, I certainly appreciate your thoughts at all times regarding the policy and I think it's good to have a few different opinions on it. If you could take a look at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/holding pen, I've created a new proposal that I we are both happy with. I certainly agree that the WP:BITE concerns are serious and we should try and discuss wherever possible before blocking these usernames - but if they don't agree to change their username, a block should still be given. Anyway, take a look at my proposal and let me know your thoughts. Ryan Postlethwaite20:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I think you showed poor judgment in condemning the "BLP nightmare," apparently without checking any sources on the man. If you just check the first paragraph or even the headline of any profile on Lieberman — NickNH has provided some [10][11][12] — you'll find that the incidents we have under "controversy" are all quite notorious. Reliable sources in fact present this stuff as relevant to Lieberman's overall biography, showing that it is not WP:UNDUE weight at all. I'm 100% sure that this seemingly uninformed comment is going to encourage Jaakobou to go on another reverting spree. <eleland/talkedits> 12:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
User:party
Hi, err, party (talk·contribs) promised me "something special", proof, if I get 500 edits, but he was accused of being a sockpuppet, so he could not give me the "something special", can you give my something special on behalf of him. Thanks. – i123Piebiocontribs22:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Motions
Overall the move looks good, but check the bottom of the new page, I think an actual RfAr got swept in with the rest of it? That should probably get moved back. --Elonka23:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you perchance just let my case kind of quietly slip through the cracks? Show us how great you Brits can be. :)Ferrylodge (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
☯ Zenwhat (talk) 03:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
.jpg)
. MBisanz talk 06:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)