User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite/archive20

A possible Izmir Lee sock

Hi Ryan,

would it be possible for you to look into User:Mttll. I think he may be a sock of the banned User:Izmir Lee. Same edit pattern (namely, the obsession with Turkey as a European nation), and the same dogged, persistent edit-warring behavior. Thanks. --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

co-nom

I'll do it tonight sir. Pedro :  Chat  19:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent - I'm looking forward to reading a Pedro nom. It will bring some light into an otherwise boring day! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

1) Kids 2) Dinner 3) Nom. Give me an hour! Pedro :  Chat  20:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Kids Done
• Dinner Done
• Nom. Done
• Beer Working

:) Pedro :  Chat  21:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, per my new years resolution there's no beer for me until easter! I can't believe I've spent my saturday night getting soaked through going for a run! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What kind of a New Year Resolution is that?? Technically of course, it's not beer as far as I go - it's wine. I'd happily forego beer for three months .... but not plonk! Pedro :  Chat  21:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was going to be no alcohol for a year, but I realised I'd never be able to do that so I've set my sights on Easter, then one night out in the summer and the next at christmas. We'll have to see how it goes - I must admit I'm feeling better for it already, although I'd murder a glass of Chardonaay right now! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

My wife and I always give up alcohol during lent... of course, she is currently giving it up for the next 9 months... but generally only during lent.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 06:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks A Lot!

Andy (talk) 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, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

For the excellent review tht you gave me. It was very helpful and I will most definately take on your advice. Andy (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA

Hey there Ryan,

Over the past few months, you've made opposes to some candidate because RfA has deteriorated significantly in the last year and your involvement partly led to the page turning into an even bigger bureaucratic mess with set standards and bitey opposes. Those were your word in Wisdom's last RfA, but you've made similar (if not quite as strong) opposes/statements elsewhere. This leads me to two questions:

1. Do you consider me to be part of the problem? If not, why not?
2. Do you consider yourself to be part of that problem? If not, why not?

I ask this because I've noticed that the two of us tend to be the trend makers at RfA. If either of us opposes a candidate, it doesn't bode well for the candidate. So how would you answer the above questions? I know how I would answer them, but I am interested in your take.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 06:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You're trend setters because you bother to take a very close look at people's contributions. Personally I just have a quick flick through, and if any edit summaries attract my attention I take a look. Apart from that qustions and experience in admin areas are all I look at.--Patton^t/c 22:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Some very interesting questions Balloonman and I've been thinking about them all day at work. My RfA "standards" (I don't really like calling them standards as I take every RfA on a case by case basis - a strength in one area often means you can often overlook another area) are very much old school. I like to see experience in admin related areas (I don't need to see much, just some). If there's a lack of experience (but they have some) then I take a very close look at their admin related edits to make sure they are doing everything correctly. If they're doing something wrong in an area they have little experience in then then that doesn't bode well. I support far more users than I oppose, but when I do oppose a candidate it's because I feel quite strongly about it. I personally only comment in RfA's where I know the candidate - If I don't know them, then I don't comment because there are better people do judge whether or not someone will make a good candidate or not. Now, you suggest that I'm a heavy hitter at RfA - I disagree really, there's been a few times where I've opposed a user and few people have agreed with me (some even calling me out in their support comments) but it's true to say there are a number of RfA's where I've opposed and the rest of the opposition has been "per Ryan". I think that boils down to the fact that I when I oppose someone, I generally do have good reason to and they are in line with community thoughts (as I said previously however, that's not always the case). When I first joined, admin related experience was the most important but it's taken a big shift towards content related experience - I don't think that's a healthy switch because some content editors aren't suited to adminship (many are however, but often these people are active in meta places as well). I don't have any problem with users who believe content is more important than admin experience - that's purely a difference of opinion and that's a good thing. My main beef with some contributors at RfA is when they feel the need to comment in every single request and often do so without any thought - they just have to get their name on the board. Over the past year, I've seen more and more of this and it's often users who's standards are ridiculously high or just like to oppose. The numbers of these types of users has increased steadily over the past year and we're at a stage where these users can kill an RfA by themselves - there's a lot who oppose almost every candidate which make the current RfA standard far too high in my opinion. Now, do I believe I'm part of the problem? No I don't - my standards have remained the same and I put a lot of thought into every RfA I participate in and I'm always familiar with the candidate anyway. I don't feel the need to comment in every RfA and I much prefer to see a candidate pass than fail. When I do oppose, I've got a good reason too and whilst some may not agree with me, they can often see and understand my thought process. Now to you..... (!) I do think you've got a slightly unhealthy obsession with RfA (sorry bud, but it's important to be honest) and perhaps you are a little too vocal at times (we all know when Balloonman is upset about something! ;-) ). However, none of those are what upset me about the current RfA atmosphere. You spend a lot of time and effort reviewing me and you don't have rigid standards - when you choose to oppose or support a candidate we all know it's come from the heart and know that it isn't a knee jerk reaction. To be honest, I think you might care a little too much about RfA, but that's not really a bad thing. Short answer, no I don't think you're part of the problem! I hope that helps put my thoughts across. If you've got anything else to ask I'll more than happily answer the best I can. Thanks for some intriguing questions! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful/honest response. I've kind of been wondering about both of the questions above ever since Wisdom's RfA. My thoughts pretty much mirror yours. One of my concerns is that I sometimes think I've become too influencial at RfA's... ok, my supports don't mean that people will support, but I worry about my opposes---which is why I have been backing off of RfA's a little lately and delving into other areas (namely CSD.) But as for the question, the reason why I would not consider the two of us as part of the problem is for the reason that I think the two of us are (for better or worse) trend setters at RfA. People know that if we are opposing a candidate it isn't frivolously... if we are opposing, it is because we see a reason to oppose and explain it. We generally don't oppose for isolated incidents or superficial reasons. (EG while I might mention my desire to have a candidate who has been active for the past six months, failing to meet that desire is not---in and of itself---enough of a reason to oppose.) And while I will !vote on people I don't know, I don't do so unless I spend a fair amount of time on them---not as much as I used to, but still more than most people do. But again, thank you for your honest (and in some places critical) review, I knew that you'd shoot me straight.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 00:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA votes

I've just gotten tired of standards at RfA. Since we decided to get rid of Kurt, we don't seem to have a resident crazy person on RfA anymore so I've decided to fill the post. I just remember that when I passed RfA, I only had something like 2200 edits, and no experience in traditional "admin areas." It's not like I was made admin in some ancient age, Wikipedia was a pretty big institution back in 2006. It just sucks to realize that my RfA would probably be snowballed right of the page nowadays, probably in less than an hour. What pains me most is seeing the whole sorry mess from an admin's perspective as well. I know from experience that the job is not difficult. The community's perceptions of admins are formed by the high drama that is ANI or RFAR. Normal sysops spend their time doing boring things, like TfD. We see celebrity admins running around and conducting war on all sorts of people and it colors the whole job in a bizarre light. The community's view of adminship, its normal duties, and the requisite qualifications for it are just so warped it's barely even believable anymore. The average candidate for adminship now has over 7,000 edits or so, has participated in difficult areas, entered in mentorship, admin coaching, clerking, and on top of it all has secured the nomination of at least one, usually two, Very Important Personnages (to borrow a phrase from Russian literature), and will still get smeared for incorrect namespace edit ratios, saying something (often dubiously) uncivil to a newbie eight months ago, or giving a less than perfect answer to one of the who-are-we-kidding-they're-really-not-optional-at-all questions they're sure to be deluged with. I didn't have any of these things and I did just fine. I'm not saying these qualifications are bad, but I am saying that RfA has been ratcheted into a system which seeks to elect messiahs, warlords, and celebrities, when it was set up to be a system which elected servants, stewards, and janitors. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 00:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 2	10 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: December themed Main Page	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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 20:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking opening

I've got ClerkBot ready to go sans web interface. Interested in opening Date delinking with it? BJ^Talk 20:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that would be fantastic - what do I need to do? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Stupid user replies!!!

he is just angry i got his socks here, no biggie :), btw, this is User:Rendy Marciano sock ...--Cometstyles 10:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

injunction wording

You mean "dates and other chronological items"? Tony (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Being simply the clerk of the case, I only published the injunction on behalf the the committee. The full wording of the injunction can be found here. As far as I can see it simply says dates. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's most unsatisfactorily worded, and allows people to mass-delink all other chronological links aside from dates. I won't be doing so, but you'd think they'd word it properly. I'm more concerned, though, that you respond to my concerns below. Tony (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What other chronological links could possibly be excluded (and hence, mass-delinked) with this language if they include a date? —Locke Cole • t • c 10:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

Hi Ryan, did you accidentally duplicate Guy Peters' opening statement on both WP:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking and WT:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking? I could be wrong, but I think it should be just on the first page. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, so I did - I've removed it now. Thanks for spotting it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of process? Please tell me it's not the way it seems

I presume that you are the supervising clerk for the ArbCom case on dates. I'm surprised that a third-party admin is quite able to:

1. add diff evidence that most participants cannot see (is there not a rule about this?)
2. make apparently spurious claims that I am uncivil by pointing to an irrelevant discussion in which my comments about the "name and shame" part of an emerging process concerning admin behaviour (withdrawn long ago, but that is irrelevant, I believe) are cast as incivility; this allegation looks to be in obvious and rather serious conflict of interest.

Just what rules do exist for evidence at ArbCom cases? Is there any protection against the making of clearly false allegations?

I'm gobsmacked that ArbCom would expose its judicial hearings to potential criticism, indeed ridicule, as chaotic and unjust. Please tell me that my assumptions are incorrect. More details on the evidence talk page. Tony (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

MBisanz has now replaced one of the two slanderous diffs with another statement taken out of context: this time it was in a light-hearted frame, but "Rudeness comes naturally to me" quoted starkly is nothing short of smearing. The more serious one is the fact that your process is allowing this admin to vent resentment at the fact his attempt to delete my AdminReview page failed, twice. Tony (talk) 10:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

During ArbCom cases, participants get more leeway to say and do what they like. The reason for this is so that all views can be aired on the table and all points can be put across to the arbitrators. A greater number of viewpoints allows the committee to determine the best course of action. From what I can gather, MBisanz deems that some of your edits are uncivil and that you have edit warred - that's his personal opinion and he has given diffs which he believes support that. Of course, you are more than entitled to disagree with that and I'd suggest the best course of action is to offer a rebuttal to each of the claims made by MBisanz either in your evidence section or in the analysis of evidence section in the workshop. If people agree with you that the diffs presented by MBisanz are misleading, they will most likely back you up in the workshop and the arbitrators will take that strongly into account. MBisanz is acting solely as an editor here and not as an administrator so whether he is uninvolved or not doesn't really matter. One thing I was slightly concerned with was the use of deleted diffs that only admins could see. If that was still the case I'd have undeleted the relevant pages so everyone could see the diffs, however it looks like MBisanz has now changed those diffs to undeleted ones. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That is a real problem: no limits on evidence or participants; it all blows out to extraordinary length. Yet it says: "Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning ..." All well and good, but when it comes to relevance and other aspects of admissibility that all self-respecting judicial processes use, the clerks are unable to act: "Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior." it pleads. Um .... Bisant's second diff is clearly irrelevant at best, leaving aside the sinister aspect of pay-back for failing to delete my AdminReview page. (He hasn't denied this.) ArbCom's judicial process is being used for corrupt purposes, it appears. Extraordinary state of affairs. Tony (talk) 11:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• By deliberately introducing "evidence" of questionable relevance, and failing to explain himself when asked how this might be relevant, I believe Bisanz is being in contempt of the process. I told him so, but all he did was change the link to another piece of equally useless evidence - a comment pretty obviously offered in humour even though it was without the customary wink. Ohconfucius (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• As to all the verbosity, I note what you say above that everyong is entitle to say all they need to say. Nevertheless, I trust and hope those in charge of administering justice will not have to wade through War and Peace, the Iliad or the Odyssey. The plaintiff has only got so far because of the ability to filibuster, and not being afraid to make a nuisance of himself. Ohconfucius (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

quote

Sorry, I missed your note on my talk page for some reason. How strange lol, wonder why they fixated on that. Do you have a suspicion who that particular vandal was? Sticky Parkin 19:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Birmingham_3

My pint is waiting for you.:) But seriously lol, be great if we could have another UK meet. Sticky Parkin 02:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

My sincere thanks

Pedro to the left, Kanonkas in the middle. Ryan Postlethwaite to the right

Thank you Ryan for nominating me - I successfully made it. Is there anything you would like to recommend to a new admin? --Kanonkas :  Talk  17:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 3	17 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: New board members, changes at ArbCom	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: Featured article writers—the 2008 leaders	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Pharmacology
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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 00:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand mediation

Ryan, would it be worth waiting to see if all the others sign up? If they do, ChildofMidnight might change his mind. I don't think he'd want to hold the mediation up on his own. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What we generally do is close the request out as soon as one party doesn't agree. The case can easily be refiled should ChildofMidnight agree. By all means discuss it with him and should he change his mind we can look at it again. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have made a comment clarifying my intentions here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Ayn_Rand As a large number of persons have already signed on I would prefer to reopen the request based on my misunderstanding of procedure (as explained in the link above) rather than start over. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, CoM, and thanks for undoing the rejection, Ryan. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Ry Ry RPg. I'm sorry for the trouble I've caused, although I do think some editors seem a little JUMPY and impatient to initiate processes. The mediation request came pretty fast on the heels of the page protect, and now I see a new mediation request and an arbitration request already filed? There are several issues being discussed on the article's talk page (and some that have been brought up, but haven't been discussed yet). I may be a dreamer, but I think it's possible that some of the issues can be worked out before we determine what, if anything, needs to be mediated. There are already an RfC, a straw poll of sorts on the "philosopher" issue, and several other concerns being discussed. Patience may be required to provide time for those whose schedules don't allow huge flexibility to be online regularly. I was actually "disagreeing" in the hopes that a delay in starting the mediation would give a chance to bring the hold-outs on board. I know I'm the bad guy at 10-1, but appearances can be deceiving and I suspect there would have been other hold-outs or objectors, far more difficult to sway than me. I think consideration to their concerns would be helpful. I'd like to hear from them. And the article is currently frozen in the version they objected to, so a 24 or 48 hour cooling off period wouldn't, in my opinion, have been a bad thing. I'm hoping they will be willing to discuss their concerns and we can work through some of them on the article talk page. I understand some of their concerns, but not all of them. If mediation isn't opening a new front in the dispute and is a process that works, I'm certainly willing to consider it. But a lot of changes and a lot of editors have been involved, and a lot of changes have been made. I actually think some progress has been made, and I think taking stock of where we are is a good idea. So I do think a little more time to sort out where we stand and what we can agree on is useful. I'm sorry if this is a bad place to post this message, but I'm posting it here anyway. :) I've already posted another diatribe of sorts on the article talk page. I'm tired, so hopefully some of this is coherent. Hasta manyana. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Very quickly - I'm not Ry Ry and never have been. That's Ryan Cross you're thinking of. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Who is Ryan Cross? Would you prefer RP? RPW? I take it you're not fond of nicknames? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind note RPg. I was interested to see that there is some very philosophic discussion on the talk page of the article today. It seems to be part of a broader debate about Wikipedia and who should be editing and writing articles. A lot of soap boxing and such, but fun stuff none the less. :) The g is for gangsta. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ryan, I saw your note on my talk page and I've gone to the mediation site and declined. It certainly shouldn't to be taken as a reflection on you as the administrator. My reasons are on the talk page of the mediation request. I hope to find a good way to move forward on this article and I hate being the one who LOOKS like he stopping that, but I think that having ArbCom or some other administrative mechanism brought into play that can take a look at the agendas in play is needed. For me to even mention that as a problem just gets me labeled as violating good faith. If you have questions of suggestions please don't hesitate to say. Best wishes, --Steve (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

RFB

Did you commented in Balloonman's RFB? See this strange edit. Your oppose comment in someone else's edit. Garion96 (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Garion for bringing that to my attention - I haven't even edited Ballonman's RfB. I'll go an warn the user. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I thought as much when I saw later that it was a newly created account. Garion96 (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Ryan

Warning duly noted. Will not do again. Sorry Ryan. SantinpanTease (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediation on "Criticism" article

Thanks for your help in getting this started. Student7 (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

IP warning

I was almost certain I had received a similar "warning" some months back, again over some alleged racist comments in some unnamed article, but I can't find it. I conclude that the IP address is a major loon. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Celtic F.C.

Thanks for taking care of the Celtic F.C. issue... you saved me the trouble of opening a case on WP:ANI :) Gail (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, someone else did (well, AN) - that's how I found it ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't noticed that before. Thanks anyway, happy editing :) Gail (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ping

FYI rootology (C)(T) 02:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Request

Hello, On behalf of the concerned parties in the mediation case of The Man Who Would Be Queen. I know that none of you have to accept our case. I felt that asking all of you would be the best first approach. If you have any interest in mediating for us, or not, please indicate this on the talk page of the mediation case. If you are outright interested, want to mediate this case, and need no other convincing then please indicate that as well and we can get the ball rolling. If not we will not bother you anymore. Thankyou. --Hfarmer (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If I may add to what Hfarmer wrote above, we very much need your help. As a group, we have had an enormous number of disputes on a set of related pages, and parts of this dispute have even put WP in The New York Times. The pages themselves remain an embarrassment to WP, and I hope you can help us solve our long-standing impasse for our own good as well as for WP's.

I can’t imagine what you or any other mediator uses in deciding which cases to take. I can’t say that the specific issues we need help addressing are novel (COI, incivility, etc.); however, I do have some confidence that most people would find the subject matter rather engaging. Such issues include the nature of transsexuality, the controversies between how (some) scientists describes transsexuality versus how (some) transsexual activists describe transsexuality, a book on the topic that immediately became wildly controversial, and the individual activists and scientists involved (some of whom participate here), all of which became quite ugly. The most complete (yet brief) description of where we now stand (in my opinion) is here.

Thank you for your attention, and I hope you can help us to resolve this wide-ranging problem.

— James Cantor (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive

I strongly object to your decision to archive my request when I was still awaiting a response to a question posted mere hours ago. Everyking (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't my decision, the arbitrators asked the clerks to archive it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A girl's face

Hello, how can this picture be verified as the photo of a dead person? http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File_talk:DeadGazagirlcloseday14.JPG

Also, this photo is being used, in my opinion, as part of a propaganda war against Israel in the Gaza conflict page. No other conflict-related articles contain such pictures. Please see the related discussion I have already started: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict#Privacy.2Frespect_of_the_dead

Could you help in this? Thanks a lot John Hyams (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The image is licensed under a creative commons license so can be used on Wikipedia (I know you weren't contesting this, but I thought I'd mention it because that was my first concern). Regarding the image itself, it's a frame from this Al Jazeera film. Given that Al Jazeera is a major news channel, it is a reliable source so the image can be used as such - The description of the image is compatible with the source. There are still moral questions, but don't forget that Wikipedia is not censored. If there is an editorial dispute about it, dispute resolution channels should be used such as a request for comments or informal mediation. There's nothing administrative that can be done with the image in question. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Detroit Free Press Article link Deleted on Jimmy Hoffa page?

On July 8th 2007, the Detroit Free Press published a story about a former Detroit Police Officer named Jeff Hansen who claimed that he discovered cremation ovens at the Grand Lawn Cemetery, which is only a few blocks away from the house in Detroit where Frank Sheeran claimed to have killed Jimmy Hoffa.*[1]

Why was the article link and the July 8th 2007 paragraph deleted? It was verified, was written by myself, not anyone associated with spectre publishing. This is over editing at its worst. --Nugglesmom (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There has been way too much over editing on that page. The links that were on that page were verified (Detroit Free Press Article 7-08-07)--Nugglesmom (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 4	24 January 2009	About the Signpost

Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions	Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more	Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates	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.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 04:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)

Referring to the rejected request for mediation

Referring to the request for mediation which you have rejected saying "there must have been prior attempts at dispute resolution", I would like you to clear that I have attempted to solve the issue previous through third opinion. Isn't that enough? --Zaher1988 · ^Talk|_{Contributions} 21:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately a third opinion on its own isn't enough. If you take a look at the guide to filing a case: prior dispute resolution requirements, you'll see that we generally only accept RfC's or third opinions with informal mediation. We do often accept cases without informal mediation when there has been a content RfC because these get wide community input. Given that a third opinion is just the opinion of one or two neutral people, it doesn't really show a serious attempt to solve the dispute without formal mediation. As I said in the rejection note, I'd suggest you file an RfC (and then possibly informal mediation) as this seems the best avenue for your dispute. If you still can't agree after the RfC, by all means refile the case. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright thank you, I will do so, I have made a mistake yesterday and filled a Mediation Cabal, which iss still pending. I will file a RFC now. --Zaher1988 · ^Talk|_{Contributions} 09:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you can file a medcab case still - that could be an alternative to an RfC. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Closure of AFDs

• Many thanks for your note. I've only closed three that were very clearly keeps and I had missed the time frame. My apologies and thank you for pointing it out to me. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 15:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SemBubenny

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SemBubenny/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SemBubenny/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 22:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 2

Provisionally scheduled for February 28. Comments welcome, & seeing you there even better! Dsp13 (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 5	31 January 2009	About the Signpost

Large portion of articles are orphans	News and notes: Ogg support, Wikipedia Loves Art, Jimbo honored
Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on	Dispatches: In the news
WikiProject Report: Motto of the Day	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 22:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Action/comment requested

See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Workshop#Removal_of_Lightmouse.27s_comments. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Request For Assistance

There is an on-going effort by a User talk:Mashkin to suppress very well sourced historical, geological, and cultural information from the Arabian Peninsula article. It's gotten so bad that its an uphill battle to include references to material in Encarta, Britannica, the New International Encyclopedia, peer-reviewed Journal articles from the Israeli Geological Survey team, links to maps from the US Geological Service/ARAMCO Surveys and so forth whenever they mention Syria or Palestine.

The Earth Sciences community refer to the whole Arabian subcontinent as the Arabian Peninsula or Arabia, not just the Gulf region. See for example the USGS Map Showing Oil and Gas Fields and Geological Provinces of the Arabian Peninsula.

This morning he posted a request for comments, but only after removing and rewriting most of the material. Needless to say the talk page is already too long to read.harlan (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Help Requested

I am looking for admin assistance. There is some very bizarre activity going on. A user named User:CalBear44, whose edits began January 30, 2009, is actively canvassing Wikipedia about me, which began after I reported a User:Douglemeister, who was revealed to be a WP:SSP of a former user User:Griot. I could use some help in this matter. Thank you. CassiasMunch (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I got a checkuser to run a check and CalBear44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sock of Griot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I think I've removed all his contributions made to harass you - please let me know if I've missed one. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If I come across anything, I'll let you know. Thanks for the help, very much appreciated. CassiasMunch (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Spotted one, his exit post, here CassiasMunch (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed. --Kanonkas :  Talk  23:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, very much appreciated--- CassiasMunch (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

Hi Ryan, Am i actually needed to comment? lol

Seeing as most of the mentions are referencing my activities which aren't actually related to the case?

Cheers

—Reedy 10:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Reedy. You don't have to comment if you don't want to, but it might be good to clarify things from your perspective. Some cases change scope as they go on, so to be on the safe side it might be best to set the record straight. I just wanted to make sure you were aware that a user was making proposals against you. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

RCC mediation

Hi Ryan, I am very happy that the name issue for Roman Catholic Church as been agreed to be mediated but I was wondering if you had an inkling of possibly when that might begin. I know it can take awhile to get started and we are not in any kind of hurry, just wondering. NancyHeise ^talk 17:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Nancy. I'm really sorry about the delay you've had in getting a mediator. I've just pinged our mailing list again about finding one. If you give me a couple more days I'll make sure you've got one. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I am not in any hurry, I was just worried that no one wanted us :) Thanks for helping. NancyHeise ^talk 14:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Seeking clarification

Hi,

I am seeking clarification. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Workshop#Clarification_on_removal_of_my_Comments_from_parties_and_accusations_of_disruption. You said "you're free to readd them if you so wish and they won't be removed again". User:Tiptoety and a few other editors say my comments were disruptive (even after you made that comment). I don't know which of you is right. How do I oppose each proposal without being accused of bad things? Lightmouse (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As it turns out, the general consensus on the matter is that whilst the edits you made were made in good faith, they were unnecessary. I'm sorry for giving you the wrong impression (I would note however that they weren't disruptive). A better way of noting this in the future would be to create a message of objection on the talk page, where you state that you don't approve of several proposals for the same reason. I hope this helps. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do that. Lightmouse (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have done that. The structure of the workshop is now broken. There are sections with proposals for banning users followed by a comment section. Some of the proposals do not have opposing comments. How do people looking at the page know that opposing comments are not in the comments section? I have never been involved in arbcom before so I don't understand why it is like this, it doesn't seem very efficient to me. Lightmouse (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ryan, can you please explain:

1. whose consensus it is you refer to (do you mean of ArbCom clerks, Arbitrators, or selected participants/other folk at the Workshop page?);
2. what you mean by "unnecessary", and whether this is your interpretation, and your choice of word;
3. whether, by logical inference, whoever it is alleged has come to this "consensus" believes that all other entries in the Workshop page are "necessary" to the process (if so, I'd like to see a few justifications of entries I would nominate);
4. where your authority to remove "unnecessary" text from the Workshop page is spelt out (I see some kind of interventionary role spelt out at the lead of the Evidence page¹, but not in that of the Workshop page; I note that no attempt was made at the Evidence page to "trim" or otherwise apply evidentiary discipline.

I wonder whether you'd mind demonstrating that Clerks' recent treatment of Lightmouse's entries can be seen to be even-handed, as required under the tenets of natural justice.

¹"Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen." Tony (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Tony, hopefully I'll be able to answer the questions you posed. The consensus was formed on the clerks mailing list - on the list we have both arbitrators and clerks, no other people were involved in the discussion. The words I used to describe the consensus were my own words, we didn't come up with specific wording. What we were trying to get across was that the comments didn't add anything to the discussion and the advice I gave was what other people on the mailing list suggested - Instead of posting the same comment to over 30 proposals, a general note on the talk page would have been better. This only came to our attention because of the removal and was in no way meant as a warning towards Lightmouse - just advice for the future about how to get his point across better and in a more effective manner. If you have any further questions, I'll answer them the best I can. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, I would like to take you up on your invitation.

• I am the only editor whose contributions have been assessed for value by arbcom. It would get complicated if you assessed everybody for value, based on quantity, repetitiveness, necessity, aggression, relevance. Could you set parameters that apply to all contributors, not just me?
• I am the only editor that has been declared disruptive (Tiptoety) by one member of arbcom and not disruptive by another (you). I don't want to be seen that way by any member of arbcom. Do you think it would be better if people avoid the term 'disruptive' and state the specific harm that is caused if they allow an infrequent contributor to speak out against ad hominen?
• We have the paradoxical situation whereby an action was deemed incorrect (removal) but the result of the action (removal) was deemed correct. So an incorrect action succeeded. That seems perverse to me. Does it to you?
• There is a structure on the page. I thought the structure was intended to help the reader. How do people looking at the page know that opposing comments are not in the comments section?

It seems to me that censorship and long sustained aggression is rewarded. Can you see why I think that? Lightmouse (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Rejoinder to Ryan's reply to me

• I think you might in future clarify what consensus you are referring to in such circumstances. And is there a need to conduct that kind of communication in private? It doesn't seem to be in a "highly sensitive" category. After the recent election, Jimbo was quite clear about the need for openness in ArbCom processes.
• "the comments didn't add anything to the discussion"—again, does this mean that all other posts at the Workshop page, in the Clerks' corporate opinion, do add something to the process? This is the inescapable conclusion if (1) there is an expectation that that the process treats all parties fairly and equally, and (2) given that no other post on either Evidence or Workshop pages has been removed to their respective talk pages.
• Does the Workshop talk page to which Lightmouse's comments have been relegated have the same status as the project page? Was another option canvassed among the Clerks, such as suggesting to Lightmouse that his comment (a reasonable one, IMO) be posted in just a few prominent places, with a rider that it applies to all or most of a certain class of proposals? Might this have protected the process from being seen as unfair to one party, and favouring unilateral and unauthorised action by another? Tony (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I also have a request. At the Workshop page, there are a lot of !votes that say Support or Oppose without any further comment or constructive feedback. However, the Arbitration guide clearly says "the workshop is not a vote, nor is it a debate. Casting a "vote" of support for your favorite proposals is less informative than a brief comment of why you think it is a good proposal, while getting into an argument with the other party in the case is less useful to the Arbitrators than a concise explanation of why you agree or disagree with a proposal." I have been a guilty to an extent of !voting, although I try to provide feedback also. Also, there has been a lot of unnecessary argument at the Workshop, which in part has resulted in the length of the page. Could you post a reminder or something on the Workshop talk page that says to the effect: a)It is not a vote and b)Please stay on topic and take the arguing somewhere else. I think people would listen to a clerk more than just some ordinary participant in the discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking Freewayguy (talk · message · contribs · count · logs · email)

My block have been set to indefinite, and my page was protected becasue i keep messing up junction lists, and making alot of mess to Los Angeles-Orange County articles, and not been careful with state DOT's symbols. I promise I will take time, and try to speak proper English, and with state's DOT symbol, don't make up abbreviation, ask source desk if I'm having trouble finding a source. Can you rview my block, and perhaps compromising. I have showed I have mature by taking time, and try to spell things properly. If can only make 5 edits a day, then just make 5. The problem with making 50 crappy edits is cauing editors twice the amout of work to try to fix them. For a junction list I messed up in los Angeels-Orange County will take one guy at least 5 minutes to fix one multiply to 50, that's 250 minutes. For 250 minutes people can just visit Golden Gate Bridge up in San Francisco, and there is alot of fun things they can do besides clearing up after my crappy edits. if I'm naive to junction lists my snadbox is a good place. When I mess up on my sandbox, it's okay because it's my lounge, nobody sees it so i can keep practing it. Alos i will try to avoiid made-up words like "Greenloop", bluelink, or pink tag. Rather, native peoples would ratehr refer to them as "Business loop", "Wikilinks" and "Speedy deletion tag". please review my talkpage on my account, and compromise it if so.--69.229.108.39 (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ryan. Just FYI, I advised Freewayguy to appeal his indef block per Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block#Appeal_to_the_Arbitration_Committee rather than continue to evade his block via IP (see the thread at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Science_desk:_Jupiter.2FSaturn.2FColo.28u.29r_guy) - but I guess that he misunderstood the instructions and posted to your talkpage instead of emailing you (in your capacity as an Arbitration clerk) in order to request that an appeal might be filed with Arbcom on his behalf. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

[2] - bad idea to unblock. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it doesn't look good. I'll email this off to ArbCom so they can make a proper evaluation, but I'll make sure to include the link you gave me Rschen7754. Thanks both, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 6	8 February 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more	Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs"
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music
Features and admins	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.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for an opinion

If its appropriate to request this and you have time, would you please check out comments made at Talk:Python_reticulatus#Debate_regarding_length_claims_made_by_various_zoos and Talk:Python_reticulatus#Verifiability. It is my position that I've endured days of personal attacks and incivility from User:Mokele and User:Jwinius.

• User:Mokele has told me "Cry me a river. I see absolutely no reason to listen to a mere amateur. Come back when you have a graduate degree in herpetology. Until then, stop wasting our time" and represents his editorial standpoints as "I don't give a crap if the news articles meet some overly-vague WP rule...we should stick to peer-reviewed scientific journal sources ONLY" and has referred to my good faith edits as "unencyclopedic crap" (all comments at [3]).
• User:Jwinius has informed me that I am "silly", [4], "petulant" , "irritable", "thin-skinned", [5] etc.

I've lost count of how many times I've encouraged courtesy in these users. Perhaps encouragement of good behavior coming from someone other than myself and User:Cygnis insignis might have effect. User:Cygnis insignis's comments on our discussion begin as follows “I've waded through the incivility, bold assumptions, uncited assertions, expletives and other obstruction to this good faith contribution. However this is not the place for identifying this obnoxious pattern of behavior...” (see hidden comments at [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Python_reticulatus&action=edit&section=17) Ultimately, this dispute is about a claim made by User:Mokele and User:Jwinius to allow certain content at Python_reticulatus#Captivity that they deem unencyclopedic. Thanks for considering my comments. -- --Boston (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Please also note this edit summary by User:Mokele "Put up or shut up, amateur. Show me this mythical "outside arbitration", because you seem to lack the balls to use the talk page anymore." --Boston (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: archiving

Very sorry about that. The workshop was just unbearable. Please feel free to revert my moves. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not a problem - I just thought it best you stop before you get into hot water and an edit war breaks out! As far as I can see, there's nothing that needs reverting at the minute. I've moved a couple of large sections over and there's a couple more I'm going to reread because I can't make up my mind about whether they're best on the main page or talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. Just an FYI, Greg L has reverted one of your moves also—[6]. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn’t realize you were a clerk. Nothing is binding on arbitrators. Why would an extremely specific, 1227-word proposal outlining a seven-step approach have so little to do with the arbitration that it belongs on a talk page? Greg L (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's actually a link to discussion - it's aim is to plan a way to move forward, but it's more of a guideline discussion, rather than arbitration related. I think it's a good start, but the workshop is too convoluted already to add something which isn't a proposal as such, more of new way of dealing with things. The talk page is an ideal place for this, or if someone could create a specific proposal in userspace and it could be discussed there. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• I think that I suggested to a clerk (not sure which one) a while ago that the thread be moved; I have no problem as it is aimed toward content and not really behavioral issues—at least not directly. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• it's more of a guideline discussion, rather than arbitration related: What is the purpose of the arbitration? This whole thing started because Locke had problems with Lightmouse’s bot delinking dates. The proposal speaks precisely to the issue of looking at the RfCs, figuring out what can be de-linked, and deciding whether a bot can participate. This is central to the arbitration; not tangential. Right? Greg L (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• The workshop header has this: “The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments”. There are…

• Proposals by Septentrionalis (Pmanderson
• Proposals by Masem
• Proposals by RexxS
• Proposals by Locke Cole
• Proposals by User:Kotniski
• Proposals by Tennis expert

And some of these are lengthy. I see absolutely no justification for my not being able to have a 1227-word Proposals by Greg L. Please respond. Greg L (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• How is that not a proposal? Greg L (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The proposal you made isn't arbitration related - it was not about arbitration, it's merely developing a standard for you all to work to. If you want to develop this, please do so in your userspace or discuss it on the talk page as I've already pointed out. If you want to propose a biding sanction, then please do so (e.g. a block or an editing restriction), but the workshop isn't the place to start forming long discussions about how you can work better together in the future. As I said, the talk page might be a better venue for this. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• The reason why edit wars have been breaking out over the comments is that most of us are new to the ARBCOM experience. The status of the various pages and what would constitute a relevant proposal is unclear, although I believe Tony has already asked for, but not received AFAIK, clarification on this. In any event, the invitation was to editors to move/remove 'their own comments', and not to move other people's. As stated in all the preamble, editing other people's is expressly forbidden except that clerks have the absolute discretion to remove anything. In order to avoid any further edit wars, I suggest that no further content moves/removals should take place except by the clerks and arbitrators. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC),
  • That's how I thought it should be, but I suspect Risker caused confusion when she said "Instead, go through your own comments and strike out unnecessary ones or move them to the talk pages. Go back to your evidence and strike out anything that isn't actually evidence or move it to the talk page." (italics added by me for emphasis) Dabomb87 (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• It seems like arbitrary and extremely unfair treatment after the tomes of horse-trash posted by some of the parties under the guise of "proposals". I am not at all convinced that the management of this hearing is without favour. Convince me. I note also that you provided no response to my rejoinder and dabomb's query, now archived. Tony (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Furthermore, since the scope of this case was never ever defined (a major problem, IMO), on what basis are you suddenly deciding that certain posts are "arbitration-related" and certain posts are not? What is the scope, please? I'm dying to know, so I can judge whether your actions are legitimate. Tony (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• The arbitrators defined the scope of the case when they issued their acceptance: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Piffle: how can all of those comments—many contradictory—constitute a proper scope? Tony (talk) 07:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Role of bots and scripts

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Workshop#Role_of_bots_and_scripts can probably be trimmed (at least 4 and 4.1; 4.2, the current proposal, should remain). I would remove these sections but they contain comments by other editors. Perhaps you can merge the relevant comments into the final proposal (4.2) and delete/move the now defunct original proposals? It's not a lot of space, but it's a start. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

They are fine. They offer slightly different alternatives and that's how things are normally formatted at arbitration. If you feel that they need to be trimmed, they are your proposals so feel free to do so yourself - but it's not something that needs enforcing by the clerk. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Noetica

I am not going to attempt any move, but believe that the entirety of Noetica's statement should be moved to the Evidence page. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

From the editor — A new leaf

Commons Picture of the Year
Picture of the Year 2008 begins voting

News and notes
Flagged Revisions, historical image discovery, and more

In the news
Political tiff, error repeated in press, predictions of doom

Dispatches
How busy was 2008?

WikiProject report
WikiProject Gaelic games

Discussion report
Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins
Approved this week

Technology report
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Arbitration report
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.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 07:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy Ryan Postlethwaite's Day!

Ryan Postlethwaite has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Ryan Postlethwaite's day! For being one of our most well-reasoned administrators, enjoy being the Star of the day, Ryan Postlethwaite! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 01:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

you comments to Greg

I would take issue with those comments you made on Greg L's talk page, specifically: "The workshop page is already overly convoluted and should be used for arbitration related proposals. Your statement was suggesting how as parties you could help the situation - that's good, but it's not a proposal which the arbitrators could use so shouldn't be on the workshop."

It strikes me that it is exclusively within your remit to clean up the workshop page,as per the instructions/preamble. There is nobody who can do that but you. That the page was overly convoluted is therefore no-one's responsibility but yours. It has been four whole weeks, and we have had Earle Martin and Dabomb87 calling out for help in bringing order to the page, but where the $&^$* were you (pardon my French)? Looking at the confusion which reigned after Risker invited editors to move their own comments, my guess is that you panicked, and then took out your gun and shot the first person closest to you, and resembles the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes. I believe that the mess was wholly of your own making, and you have been grossly unfair for making Greg pay for it. You inaction/actions do not resemble those of a mature adult. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed two sets rambling from the workshop, and that's all that I believe should be moved. People have posted more for me to look at which I have done and don't believe they should be removed. There's not much else I can do to bring order to the page. No panicking went on, and Greg was given three opportunites to curb his behaviour before he finally got blocked - I'd say I was fairly lenient considering he reverted me three times. By the way I noticed your little jibes on Greg's page about me not issuing warnings or block notices - if you did you research a little better before jumping in head first without thinking you'd have seen that I issued both a warning and a block notice but Greg decided to remove them. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suppose Greg was gobsmacked at what seemed like completely biased behaviour. When do we learn of the criteria you are using to distinguish between what is "rambling" and what is not? Tony (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please take another look. Greg did not revert you three times. You reverted him three times. In between the first and second time, the content was different. As to your warning, it consisted of a rather blunt "don't do this again -it doesn't belong here" message to him without explaining the rationale behind your refusal to admit his evidence. You might be dealing with ArbCom stuff every day, but you should realise that there is often a significant gap between what you know and what the parties know, and your failure to communicate was partly responsible for Greg getting blocked by you. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What a load of nonsense. In an arbitration like this is clearly not the place where policy matters should be proposed in the form Greg L did, and I noted as much at the time. Ryan was acting completely in keeping with the stated purpose of the arbitration (I would remind you yet again to look at the acceptance statements of the ArbCom) in moving this material off the workshop page. It's Greg L's fault if he didn't understand the proper use of the workshop; and it is an act of sheer stupidity to get into an edit war with a Clerk rather than trying to talk out the disagreement. Well done for helping keep things on track, Ryan. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• You call 450kB of "evidence" (of which 150kB from Tennis expert) and 670kB of workshop "keeping things on track, when the preamble clearly states "Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible"? Congratulations Poss. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah, sour grapes, and a non-argument, too. The workshop page for Eastern European disputes ended up at 1,064,091 bytes and C68-FM-SV at 883,333 bytes. Ryan reduced the size of our workshop by something like 100K, and you're complaining? Get over yourself. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting statistics, but I'm not impressed. This is not a pissing contest, and the objective of RFArb is not to see which case gets the highest number of Mb of "evidence", but that everyone follows the rules and thus has a fair say with concise statements. The "convolutedness" of the Workshop page is a function of the acrimonious dispute this has turned into, without adequate supervision from ArbCom's clerks. It is my considered opinion that all this is too much for Ryan. He should have been on the ball, enforcing the rules, such as removing irrelevant postings. If his responsibilities were not clear to him, he should have sought clearance and clarification, rather than sit around for four whole weeks while there was "rioting in the jail". If he had been on the ball, the page would never have needed to be pruned by 100kB, coz it would never have bloated to the extent that it had. Yeah, congratulations on the great work once again, RP. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

RfAr proposal clarification request

I would like to see if there is a specific reason why the proposal for ArbComm to draft an RfC which might produce a clear consensus was archived. IIRC, User:Greg L proposed it, and then withdrew it with the assertion that his RfC would help, and I restored it as my suggestion, as it didn't seem to me that Greg's RfC was helpful in determining consensus at all. If the ArbComm doesn't want to consider the proposal, that would be one thing, but if it's associated with others of Greg's proposals which are considered inappropriate, I'd like to discuss reinstatement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

My user page

No, that wasn't me. Thanks for blocking the impostor. —Angr 13:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Closing

Is there any reason why you did not close this complaint when you moved it to AE? I would have thought two arbs commenting on it is enough to end the matter. It looks like Tennis expert is still scratching at it, looking for ways of getting me, so please put the poor sod out of misery. He can always open another case if he finds something else against me. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Opinion or Fact?

This seems to be a fairly heated topic and a lot of people seem to have OPINIONS about this, and I am new to Wikipedia but I am concerned with the whole Fact versus Opinion problem with some articles. There is one article in particular, NCAA_Division_I_FBS_National_Football_Championship where people are trying to portray an opinion as fact by continually referring to this as a "mythical" championship due to their disagreement with the method that they are using in order to determine the champion for D1A NCaA Football through the BCS Championship, and they are trying to prove "fact" by citing the wikipedia article Mythical_national_championship which uses it's sources for "fact" as a single comment made by one person, I also didn't think that sourcing wikipedia as a source wasn't accepted as the only source for "facts" since they need to be third party in order to be fully backed as truth, unless I am mistaken about what the standards are here on Wikipedia. Granted I disagree with the Mythical_national_championship article even existing, but that's a different issue. What it really comes down to is I have no idea how to deal with the constant vandalism with the way people are altering the Summery at the top of the page and where their concerns and opinions would really be better served by broaching the controversy in a subsection of the article instead of in the summery, and it would allow for the point of view to be shared and understood to be someone's opinion, versus actually being a "fact". 65.96.67.105 (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

requesting input

Ryan Postlethwaite, i'd very much appreciate your input here - i protest the move to redefine what "date linking" means, but am not interested in debating it with Locke Cole. someone informed but neutral needs to state whether or not "date linking" and "date markup" are to be treated as synonyms in this RFC and in the drafts/discussions leading up to it. thanks. Sssoul (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

still hoping for at least some kind of acknowledgement that you've seen/understood this request ... and it's increadingly seeming worth asking if you're aware that the two RfCs that were held in December 2008 on the date linking/delinking/autoformatting issues were widely publicized, including via watchlist notifications? it seems odd to simply "disavow" very recent high-traffic RfCs as if the wider community had no awareness of the issues. thanks for some kind of reply Sssoul (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Sssoul. I was hoping to get to this about 8 hours ago, but my internets been off all day and I've only just got it back now. I'll work on a response for you and you'll have it by the end of the day. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. I'm well aware of the RfC's that took place towards the end of last year, but it seems clear that they weren't clear enough and/or didn't deal with issues in a deep enough manner. The RfC which I hope we can get off the ground will be much more specific and ask for opinion from the community in very specific situations. With respect to your point about date markup and date delinking, it would be my hope that it could be left to the RfC to decide on each point separately. We need this new RfC to be comprehensive and deal with the issues once and for all. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the reply, but you haven't addressed my main points:

1] Locke Cole undid an edit of mine and then changed the term "linking" to "markup" at a few points in the text. see here: i protest this change, since "linking" and "markup that does not create links" are two different things. i am specifically requesting intervention with that, but it's just one example of where an informed neutral eye is needed to actively supervise the construction of this text.

2] i know you're aware of the two December RfCs; i trust you're also aware of how widely advertised they were. the text currently reads as if you think the wider community has never heard of any of this, and that makes a very weird and unfortunate impression.

and a new point, while i'm here: recent announcements of this draft call it "an ArbCom-proposed RfC". is this draft your private initiative or an ArbCom initiative? that needs to be clear Sssoul (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look into your first point, but to answer your second point, I agree the other RfC's were widely advertised (a watchlist notice if I recall correctly?) but they were somewhat ambiguous in their wording. It does also appear that there were rival RfC's running at the same time. I want this new RfC to be much more comprehensive in its wording - each point put to the community needs to be highly specific. Also, it would be good if each point was explained thoroughly, with pros and cons to fully inform the members of the community who take part. This is of course a private initiative from myself, but I hope the arbitration committee can rubber stamp it at the end (again, this is just a hope at this stage) so it would be a committee sanctioned RfC. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks - i've been off line for a few days, but:

a] have you had a chance to look into my request for input here?

b] can you explain the relationship between "your" RfC draft and WP:Date_linking_request_for_comment/Call_for_participation? are these two different initiatives that are supposed to proceed simultaneously, or has one replaced the other, or ... ? thanks Sssoul (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Cambridge meetup

The second Cambridge meetup is confirmed for this Saturday, 3pm, at CB2 on Norfolk Street: Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 2. Hope to see you there. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Note

Unfortunately, I've been really busy this weekend and to top it off, I haven't been feeling too great. I see a number of questions/requests above which I will get to either on Sunday night or Monday morning. I can only apologise for not getting to these earlier. I'm also well aware that I said I would create a draft copy of the date linking RfC for yesterday which I haven't been able to get to yet - I can assure everyone that it has my full attention and I'll get to that either tomorrow or Monday as well. Many thanks for everyone's patience. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh nasty. Hope you feel better soon then.--Patton^t/c 23:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

• Books extension enabled
• News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
• Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC page

Ryan—As I feared, it has simply relocated the dispute; indeed it may have intesified it, since there is now an expectation that wording agreed by all will arise from it. We have already had umpteen RfCs. The most recent attempt needs some kind of focus or new direction. I'm unsure how, though. Do you have any ideas? Tony (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Request status update for Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church

Mediator ([[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell) has been in active on Wikipedia for 5 days and his sole activity yesterday was a single revert. This mediation has hit an impasse and needs a mediator who can be active on a daily basis. --Richard (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Richard. Shell is a little busy in real life at the minute so Sunray is going to take over. I hope that helps. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

How are you feeling?

Ryan, I believe I read some post of yours somewhere that you were extra busy lately and, on top of that, weren’t feeling well. How are you doing on both counts? The Date linking RfC has seen 95 edits since you last weighed in twelve days ago on February 19th. Can you please provide us an update on your availability? Greg L (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Greg, sorry for the late response. I'm actually working on the actual RfC as we speak (User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Draft RfC). To make it as clear as possible, I think a poll would be best. My proposal is for it to be in two stages (if you read the draft you'll see what I mean). At the minute, I can only create phase one because phase two depends on the results of phase one. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

How to go in this dispute?

An edit-war situation is developing at Talk:Melodrama#Race Melodrama over issues that will speak for themselves. Can you please read the discussion and advise us, preferably on that talk page, how we can go about achieving finality here? Cheers Bjenks (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Er, time passes and I've decided to post this on FTN as an interim measure. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The Aviator

Please see the following page, The Aviator. I have been observing some vandalism of a section of the article, but now it's advanced instead of through other means to a legal threat. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC).

Mediation committee question that needs to be addressed

Your input regarding a question for the mediation committee is requested. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation#Would_this_case_be_accepted.3F. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nuances on date linking

Ryan. Please explain how you intend to address the nuances of date linking. I understand you plan two RfCs. This mysterious second RfC may be where all the magic has to take place in order to settle the details of date delinking. The wording you have here at Draft RfC#Month-day markup, which is “I support the concept of month-day markup” is overly binary. The past RfCs have hinged on more nuanced language like the RfC I posted, which had this wording:

Proposed motion of consensus regarding date linking: Per Wikipedia:Why dates should not be linked, it should be a rare date indeed that is linked in regular body text. All links should be particularly topical and germane to the subject matter. Links to lists of historical events that have little to nothing to do with the subject matter at hand should generally not be made.

The overwhelming majority of the Wikipedian community agreed with that statement. Then, the dispute arose among the warring parties about what exactly “rare date indeed” meant. Your new wording gives the editors who have previously expressed their view that it is not an issue of “never” but “very rarely.”

I tried to address this nuance with my proposal here on your Date linking RfC, which reads as follows:

Question–Should the following MOSNUM guideline be adopted: Date articles should not be linked on Wikipedia unless the date article to which is being linked has content that predominantly shares a common theme (besides the fact they share a common day or year) that is particularly germane and topical to subject of the linking article. For instance, Timeline of World War II (1942) may be linked to from another article about WWII, and so to may 1787 in science when writing about a particular development on the metric system in that year.

Again, the community has already clearly stated that it is not an issue of “I support” or “I don’t suport”; it is a nuanced issue. The challenge before you is to get some sort of question in a community RfC that better drills down and clarifies what the community wants than what we already have. Greg L (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. Would you possibly be able to provide me with some more proposals for additions to the guideline? Perhaps your idea may be a better way to move to. Rather than trying get support/opposition things that cover a large number of situations, have support/opposition based on specific guideline additions. In you suggestion above, how about you provide an example of when not to link to dates? E.g. Linking to 1987 when discussing when an actor first appeared on screen.

One area I'd like you to work on is month-date markup. Could you provide a proposal to add to the guideline for the RfC? Something along the lines of "Month date articles should not be linked to unless they have the article being linked from has particular revelence to the month-date article" (You will probably be able to word it better than me) then provide examples of when to, and when not to link to the month-date articles. We could quite easily get away with asking just 3 or 4 questions that way on date linking. Autoformatting is obviously another area, but let's get date linking sorted first. If we could do it this way, we'd only need one poll. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Fabulous. Here are some additional thoughts. If an RfC goes into too great of detail, it makes it exceedingly difficult to get unambiguous results. For instance, if we were to propose specific, highly detailed wording for a MOSNUM guideline, like Dabomb87’s RfC summary results, there will undoubtedly be editors who say “I agree with most of this, but don’t agree that ‘{{seealso}} tag in a paragraph where the date is relevant to that paragraph’ properly speaks to… (blah, blah, retching details, ad nauseam).”

  To my knowledge, most—perhaps all—of our date de‑linking side supports Dabomb87’s summary as the actual guideline wording. We believe Dabaomb has properly and faithfully read the RfCs and has captured the spirit of the comments from the community. Such a lengthy guideline would properly be a separate sub-page of WP:MOSNUM. The short summary of the principle of when to link (very rarely), should, IMO, be what appears in MOSNUM and it is that wording (our best effort at capturing the principle) that should appear in a community-wide RfC.

  If we can agree that this is the basic approach, then the wording in the lower of the above two quotes can be tweaked—perhaps with Dabomb87’s help—to ensure it properly conveys the basic principle as fleshed out in his summary. Greg L (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• As I said, any chance you could come up with a proposal for a guideline addition for month-date links on the same line as your year links proposal? I've read the summary, but I really stink at things like this. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thinking… Greg L (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• One thing I will say is that it's only fair to allow the "other side" to have their say as well in this. It's all good and well having proposals which are slanted to your view point, but your major concerns about this whole process centered around it not being neutral. Turning this around going from something that was relatively neutral to being completely skewed towards the anti-linking side isn't really fair. For this to be a fair process, a proposal supporting more linking should also be offered to the community and once I get the anti-linking side, I do plan to get the pro-linking sides ideas as well. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

• As to your last post: Understood. I would submit that if you read the user comments on the last RfC, and ignore my (biased) proposed questions and read the community vote statements, you will find that wording as shown below fairly captures the community consensus. I look forward to seeing what the “other side” would propose. I expect only that their proposed wording not be what they want, but is their best effort at reading the RfC results and capturing the views of the community.

  Here is a proposed guideline to run past the community and see if they agree with it:

  Proposed: Date articles should not be linked on Wikipedia unless the date article to which is being linked is particularly germane and topical to subject of the linking article.

  For instance, Timeline of World War II (1942) may be linked to from another article on or closely related to WWII. Similarly, editors may link to 1787 in science when editing a science-related article, such as a particular development on the metric system that occurred in that year. Specific day-month dates make be linked in articles about holidays that fall on the same day every year; e.g. Christmas Day, April Fools' Day, and Cinco de Mayo.

  In all cases, links to articles that are compendiums of events that happened on a date throughout history or during a particular year must be particularly relevant to the article one is editing. What editors should not do, in Sydney Opera House for instance, is link any portion of the date in this sentence: The Opera House was made a UNESCO World Heritage Site on 28 June 2007, since the vast majority of the contents of June 28 and 2007 are not germane to either UNESCO or the Sydney Opera House.

I think an RfC with this wording, which gives the community an opportunity to comment on whether they think this basic principle should go to MOSNUM will see good participation. Perhaps another step out of this ArbCom, coming out of the upcoming community-wide RfC, is for you to read the vote comments and decide if Dabomb87’s detailed proposed guideline properly captures community consensus so there is no bickering of that either. Greg L (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

For a viewpoint from the pro-linkers, see User:Kendrick7/Summary of the Date Linking RFCs. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ryan, OK, I just now figured out what you were clearly saying: you need wording on month-day similar to what we now have for year links. Gotta go walk the dogs with the wife. Will get to this shortly. Greg L (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ryan, this is my suggestion for inclusion here at Draft RfC:

Month-day articles (e.g. February 24 and July 10) should not be linked on Wikipedia unless the month-day article to which is being linked has content that is particularly germane and topical to the subject of the linking article; that is, their content shares an important connection other than the fact they are events that occurred on the same date throughout history. For instance, specific day-month articles make be linked in articles about holidays that fall on the same day every year; e.g. Christmas Day, April Fools' Day, and Cinco de Mayo. An important exception is articles that are intrinsically chronological and list-based by nature (e.g. 1789, January, 1940s, and Sunday); these may also contain linked dates.

Editors should not link the date (or year) in, for instance, a sentence such as this (from Sydney Opera House): The Sydney Opera House was made a UNESCO World Heritage Site on 28 June 2007, because little, if any, of the contents of June 28 and 2007 are germane to either UNESCO, World Heritage Site, or the Sydney Opera House.

Greg L (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Excellent, that's exactly what I wanted. I'll copy that over to the draft RfC later tonight or tomorrow morning and I'll also get to the other sides proposals as well to get things moving. What would you suggest regarding autoformatting? Perhaps a simple support/oppose of a number of different methods and also for complete removal from user preferences might be the best way to go. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Sounds good. You might consult User:UC_Bill, as he seems to be the expert on autoformatting. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggested approach to autoformatting

Ryan,

In the upcoming, ArbCom-sponsored RfC, I don’t think the precise same technique used for year linking and day-month linking will work for autoformatting; it truly is a very binary issue. I advocate a simple Statement by arbitrator (what, exactly, is the nature of the issue?), a ≤500-word statement for, and a ≤500-word statement against. Caveat: My technical description in the Statement by arbitrator may have errors. As Dabomb87 wrote above, User:UC Bill can be of some facility in ensuring it is factually correct. The following are my proposed wording for the first and last sections:

---

Statement by User:Ryan Postlethwaite:

Intended effects of the proposed autoformatting system:
Articles that contain dates would be tagged at the top or elsewhere (e.g. {{DATEFORMAT:DMY}} or {{DATEFORMAT:MDY}} ) to set the default date format throughout that article. Throughout the article, editors would write all dates with double brackets, such as [[January 1, 2007]] or [1 January 2007]].

For visiting readers, these bracketed dates would consistently default to the format established by the tag. Thus, an article on the Chicago Cubs would have a {{DATEFORMAT:MDY}} header that sets all dates to default to American-style dates, January 1, 2007 regardless of the code within the double brackets.

However, registered and logged-on Wikipedians who had set their date preferences to something other than “No preference” would see the dates formatted accordingly; for example, those who had set their date preferences could see Euro-style dates (1 January 2007) even though Chicago Cubs was tagged to default to American-style dates for regular users.

Statement for:

[To be determined]

Statement against:

(342 words)

We adhere to the fundamental principle that all editors should see the same article content as regular I.P. users. The Wikipedian community does not want to have date formatting tools in articles that creates a default format for a given article for all regular I.P. readers to see, and which then provides a custom view per the preferences setting that would benefit only A) registered editors, who B) have set their date preference to something besides “No preference”.

For example, an article on United States Declaration of Independence might have a special magic word that globally establishes the date format in that article. This technique would further require that every date in an article be tagged with something like {{4 July 1776}}. When done this way, all dates in a given article could appear in the “July 4, 1776” format for all our regular, everyday, non-registered I.P. users (which is the vast majority of our readership). Registered editors however, who don’t like looking at the date format that everyone else sees would be spared from this default under this proposal. They could set their preferences in order to see only “4 July 1776.” We feel that this is totally unnecessary effort that does not benefit our I.P. readers any more than simply writing out “July 4, 1776”. We see no need whatsoever to make it any more complex.

Further, per Wikipedia:Why dates should not be linked, there is an advantage to ensuring editors see precisely what our I.P. readership sees. Editors would not be able to see when articles have inconsistent or incorrectly formated dates if they are the isolated from the article content that everyone else sees due to these proposed formatting tools. The community embraces the notion that we should not be burdening editors and page code with tools that only provide special views of article content for registered editors. The community believes that for the vast majority of circumstances, regular dates in body text should be simple fixed-text dates in a format chosen per MOSNUM guidelines governing that issue.

---

Greg L (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed modification of statement of fact:

Statement of fact:

Effect of autoformatting if approved:
Articles that contain dates would be tagged with a special magic word, such as {{DATEFORMAT:DMY}} or {{DATEFORMAT:MDY}} that would set the default date format throughout that article. Further, editors would write dates with brackets like [[January 1]], [[2007]] or [[1 January]] [[2007]].

Regardless of the format within the brackets, the effect would be that all bracketed dates would, for anonymous users, consistently default to the format established by the tag. Thus, an article on, for instance, the Chicago Cubs would have a {{DATEFORMAT:MDY}} tag that sets all dates to default to American-style dates, January 1, 2007 regardless as to how the editor coded the date within the double-brackets.

However, Wikipedia users who are A) registered editors, and who B) have set their user preferences on date format to something other than “No preference” will see the dates formatted in their format of choice. Thus, even if Chicago Cubs is tagged to default to American-style dates for regular I.P. users, registered editors who have set their user preferences setting accordingly, could see Euro-style dates if they chose (1 January 2007).

I prefer "anonymous user" to "I.P. user", also the DATEFORMAT tag can appear anywhere in the article (it's been suggested it be placed at the top, but it could just as easily be placed at the bottom alongside categories, for example). I also fixed the syntax used. I'm still not 100% sure on this language since a final Dynamic Dates (auto formatting) system would likely provide a method for anonymous users to select a date format without needing to sign in. And if this is to be a "final RFC" on the subject, I want to know if the community would approve of such a system (even if interim fixes didn't resolve this). This also affects the wording of any "statement against". —Locke Cole • t • c 02:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Upon first reflection, this proposed wording seems OK. Thinking about it… Off-line consulting… Greg L (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• I am not at all happy with the structure of this, although the wording seems to be evolving well. My first issue is that "Ryan's statement", which needs to be as neutral as possible, casts the proposal as "what would happen", without a single mention of the technical, administrative and strategic difficulties that lie in the way of achieving this. Here, the real state of affairs needs to be put to the community, not a statement that seems to hinge merely on acceptance by the community (the most likely meaning of the "woulds" as currently worded) .Without the writers' intention, it has become a solid entree into the pro-linkers' "Advantages" statement, which follows it immediately. One or both of the following remedies need to be applied: (1) reference in the "official, neutral" statement to the fact that there may be technical and administrative difficulties in achieving this; and/or (2) the Disadvantages section comes straight after it, not relegated to last as elswhere. That in itself has been a skew we have had the goodwill to accept, but here, it matters much more. Tony (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
• PS I'd prefer much less than 500 words, given that people will switch off if faced with 1000 words. Below 300 each would be good, if it can be managed. I intend to trim the "Against" statement accordingly. Tony (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Tony, regarding your note above, could you please provide examples of real-world situations where disadvantages are listed first? The natural flow is "advantages and disadvantages" or "pros and cons", not "disadvantages and advantages" or "cons and pros". --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed tweaks to the intro:

Effect of autoformatting if approved:
Articles that contain dates would be tagged with a special magic word, such as {{DATEFORMAT:DMY}} or {{DATEFORMAT:MDY}} that would set the default date format throughout that article. Further, editors would write dates with brackets like [[January 1, 2007]] or [[1 January 2007]].

Regardless of the format within the brackets, the effect would be that all bracketed dates would, for anonymous users, consistently default to the format established by the tag. Thus, an article on, for instance, the Chicago Cubs would have a {{DATEFORMAT:MDY}} tag that sets all dates to default to American-style dates, January 1, 2007 regardless as to how the editor coded the date within the double-brackets.

However, registered Wikipedia users will have the option of customizing how dates are formatted through options in their user preferences. Thus, even if Chicago Cubs is tagged to default to American-style dates as per the above example, a user could choose to see Euro-style dates (1 January 2007).

This is clearer and more direct. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Statement of fact" is highly misleading. It cannot possibly have this title, since the technology is at a very immature stage, with much to be ironed out. Apart from that, I see no added value to Greg's version at the top. But all of this is moot, since 15 March is far, far too early to be putting this to the community. What, exactly, would the question be, in any case? Tony (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

An extensive statement is here. Tony (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Tony, while I had hoped you might actually consider this instead of just dismissing it, your response did catch one inadvertent cut-and-paste bit of text (the "fact" line) which wasn't in the original version. I've removed it, and invite comments as before. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

We have here an opportunity to finally eradicate the gross mistake originally perpetrated when date-autoformatting was allowed to be confused with date-linking. Please consider the folly of once again using [[]] to delimit dates. There are plenty of other characters available, why use ones already in use for wiki-markup of links? Is there any disadvantage of using something like ##10 March 2009## or @@Dec 31, 2008@@ or even %5–23 July 1944%? If new software is to be developed, then surely it is simpler to parse for a different delimiter than one already in use and it would allow date-links to be mixed (in the very rare case they are justified) without the software having to sort out which is a link delimiter and which delimits a date. --RexxS (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Dynamic Dates

I've made a statement regarding this RFC issue at Wikipedia:Date linking request for comment/Call for participation#View by Locke Cole. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Quoting you (from that link): …including the ability for anonymous users to choose their own date format. That’s fine. I’ve asked for this feature for months and months. But I don’t see it in the offing anytime soon. Are UC Bill et al., including you, willing to drop this current proposal for now? If so, we can leave autoformatting off the table on the ArbCom. Greg L (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• And I've never denied there was interest in that feature, but it will take longer to get right than every other problem UC Bills proposed fix resolves. You must realize that a large portion of the problems with the current Dynamic Dates system are easily resolved to varying degrees of your satisfaction. My point with my comment at "Call for participation" is that we shouldn't be discussing one specific proposal (UC Bills, or Werdnas), but rather whether the community feels this is nice to have at all. We can move forward with fixing it if they affirm a desire for it, and stop working on it if they don't. I don't see why this should hold up inclusion in the RFC though. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• I’m not going to be chasing your around to debate on two different pages. We have a lengthier and more probative thread here: User_talk:Ryan_Postlethwaite/Date_linking_RfC#Comments. I’ll see you there. Please respond to my last post there. Greg L (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC timing

I've seen March 15th mentioned as the start date of the RFC; I would suggest holding off until arbitration has concluded since I believe the behavioral issues will simply cause more problems during the RFC (as you're no doubt aware some editors have been engaging in socking to avoid blocks and bait other editors, as well as general attitudes and behavior by all involved (myself included, regrettably)). Plus the issue of Dynamic Dates has no chance of being properly presented in that time frame given the disputes over how it should be worded. I think Dynamic Dates is a central issue here that could render some of the linking issues moot, but obviously we need to agree on how best to present this to the community. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Concur. There is no need to rush this. If we mess up this RfC, the community may not accept another. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. My initial time frame was a little too enthusiastic. Aside from sorting things out with all the perties to make sure everyone's happy, I'd like to have some time getting neutral comments on the RfC process from totally uninvolved people by advertisement on WP:CENT and the village pump. We're probably at least a month off to be honest. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you seeing this?

User_talk:Ryan_Postlethwaite/Date_linking_RfC#Comments

Greg L (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, I'm going to disengage from discussing the issue of Dynamic Dates with either Greg L or Tony1. This edit, coupled with Tony's total lack of knowledge of the subject (but insistence on pushing his lack of knowledge on the community at large), make these discussions fruitless. But I will reiterate here: Dynamic Dates (auto formatting) is a central issue on this discussion, and to table it (while still asking about linking of dates/years) would be a disservice to the work being done by developers working to resolve this problem (rather than consistently attempting to derail and disrupt progress). —Locke Cole • t • c 16:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I have seen it. The key to this whole RfC is to not rush things. I'm currently dealing with the linking issues, then I plan to move on to autoformatting. I do see autoformatting as a very key point in this RfC - we need to put the issues across as neutrally as possible and let the community decide. The RfC needs to show exactly what currently happens with autoformatting and we need to get developer input about what is likely to and likely not to be done in the future. Nobody should be dropping the autoformatting issue - it needs to be sorted out in this RfC. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you see them as "a very key point in this RfC"? I can't quite see the connection, except that the old system unfortunately piggybacked on top of linking. DA seems to be an entirely different issue, and one that could be dealt with another time, if and when these people come up with a demonstrable, workable system: I doubt that they will. Tony (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• In a nutshell Ryan, Locke and UC Bill are distancing themselves from the Autoformatting tool (the one described in the proposed wording for the RfC). Locke wrote After all, why bother working on something if the community will shoot it down? We could push forward with autoformatting in the RfC, but it appears no one feels interested in trying to write the Statement for, since they now realize/concede the inevitable outcome. They now have a new idea for autoformatting, but it is just that: a new idea and needs to go through the normal channels for such things. Greg L (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

• News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
• Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Adminship Anniversary

Wishing Ryan Postlethwaite/archive20 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Versus22 talk 05:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bold RFC Suggestion

Ryan, I hope you recognize the behavioral issues surrounding this dispute, particularly the tendency to argue things indefinitely as well as overstate opinions as established facts. With that reality in mind, I have a very bold suggestion:

Should this RFC go live after reaching some agreed upon language, proponents on both sides should

• a) be forbidden from participating (via !votes) on the discussion itself or on the associated talk page for a period of two weeks,
• b) be blocked from editing for a period of at least one week at the start of the RFC to prevent behavior from tainting the results (should an outcome become obvious sooner than one week, the blocks may be lifted early, but I'd suggest at least a week to keep the peace), and
• c) the blocks be enforced with random checkusers to ensure compliance by all involved.

It is my hope that we can avoid the many problems that plagued the earlier RFCs, in particular the combative tone and behavior, which might cause people to shy away from offering an opinion. I think (and you do as well it seems) the key is to get uninvolved editors to voice an opinion in an environment free of behavioral issues and without biased and loaded responses misinforming the community about the issues. And yes, this would mean myself and others supporting me would also be blocked per the italicized guidance above. I'm willing to do this to find some finality and resolution to this. As an aside, if a block isn't reasonable, a topic ban might suffice as well (so long as it were enforced by blocks for violators). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the craziest proposal put forth yet. I wouldn't mind item A being put into play though. How about a one-week topic ban? There are other parts of the encyclopedia that editors can contribute to; no need to block everything out. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Translation of Locke’s “Bold” suggestion: “Shut Greg, and Dabomb87 and Tony up. Shut them UP! Their writings have that inconvenient attribute of “truthiness” that influences others’ opinions. And I, Locke, am willing to be silenced in order to silence them.” Indeed, “Bold” (if Websters now defines bold as “galactically absurd”). Greg L (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not going to start blocking people, but when the RfC has been agreed by all the parties, I'm going to open it up to the wider community and ask all the parties to stay out of it. I want neutral opinions before we start the RfC, and I want to have neutral opinions free from argument. As I said however, that will only happen when the parties are happy with what we have. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Whoa there Ryan. There are always interim measures you can employ besides completely muzzling all parties with the requirement that they not participate whatsoever in the RfC and must remain totally silent. If the concern is a crap pile of back and forth arguing and filling up the RfC voting pages with endless rants (a legitimate concern), just put all named parties on a one-post-per question, word-limited ration. I would suggest a vote-comment limit the size of Locke’s last paragraph in his above post: 130 words plus autosignature. Greg L (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I will not accept some kind of topic-block on the parties in response to comments by outside people. If the parties here have formulated a wording that they can live with, I see no problem in waiting while others make comments. Preventing certain people from making comments would undermine the credibility of the process. Tony (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Request

Could you keep tabs on User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Date linking RfC and related pages a little more? I know you're busy and some amount of free reign is needed so that we get the wording and structure right, but the edit warring and roundabout discussions are getting out of hand—it seems like MOSNUM, MOSLINK, and BTW all over again. I've stepped away from those pages generally because it's so heated and nonproductive over there. The behavior and comments (from both sides) are off-putting, this coming from someone who has been involved with the dispute for about half a year now. No wonder we are receiving little input besides the usual crowd, and a couple developers. Anyway, just hoping that you can cool everything down. Again, thanks for all your work. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My talk page

Hey Ryan I think that you may be online and was hoping you could quickly consider my report at ANI regarding my talk page. Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Block disputed

See [7]. Whatever the category, this is not a pseudoscience topic, as should be obvious if you read the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please undo your block, this is scientific fraud not pseudoscience. Verbal chat 09:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the quick reaction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Admins are not necessarily expected to know if an editor has received permission when an editor has edited near some kind of edge, doesn't inform the community of that, and there is no crisp edge between pseudoscience and fringe science. The proper procedure for any editor who was aware of the Arbcomm permission would be to inform Ryan of it immediately and request unblock. It does appear that Ryan did respond promptly, but any other admin could have, in this situation, immediately unblock because of the obvious error.

The question of whether or not N-rays were fringe science related or not is a somewhat more complex one. Obviously, Ryan thought it was and so acted. Even if he was incorrect, administrators may make errors. If an editor pushes the edge of a ban, and given how many administrators there are, a block is simply not surprising.

However, given the pattern of edits over the last few days, the N-ray edit was quite possibly a deliberate provocation, and, once again, the community overreacted. And all this fuss over what? Getting SA unblocked for three more hours until the ArbComm three-month sanction was closed, it already had a majority? Normal procedure: SA is blocked, puts up unblock request stating permission from ArbComm. Somebody believes him, or verifies it, and it's over quickly, no fuss, no AN/I report, no groups of users shouting. But if the purpose is disruption, if the edit is a trap, set because SA knows that some admin will make the "mistake," the matter is quite different, and, in fact, just a more sophisticated continuation of the spelling corrections and other openly defiant provocations that led to the three-month ban.

I know of editors who were blocked by an admin, uncivilly, while the admin was involved with the related article, totally improper block, and if the editor doesn't put up an unblock template, there is practically no hope that I could get it reversed as long as that admin keeps his or her admin bit. I was blocked, and waited a few days before putting up an unblock request just to see what would happen. Nobody would lift a finger until I put up the template. When I did put it up, as I considered very possible, it was denied, and then I was unblocked by another admin with no further ado. Due process. Don't leave home without it.

I reviewed SA's set of edits to N ray and the edits themselves, on the face, are just fine. There is a hint, however, on AN/I, that SA has been trying to "spin" N rays as fringe science, or to spin fringe sciences as being like N rays. And then I noticed, under See also, Cold fusion. That wasn't put there by SA, and it has sat there for over a year. It is a POV-pushing "See also" reference. Cold fusion is fringe science, by the Wikipedia definition, and is not pseudoscience or fraud (usually!), so there may indeed have been a "fringe science" agenda involved in improving the N-ray article. However, the edit itself was inoffensive, and if SA had confined himself to helpful edits like this, and excepting the possible provocative intent, he'd not be blocked today.

Ryan, you acted properly, both in the block and in the rapid (30 minutes) unblock. --Abd (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Where were you yesterday?

Maybe I'm assuming too much but why couldn't you have handled my situation instead of another admin? On a more serious note, why did you remove the warnings off of Nja247's page? They were completely appropriate. Beantwo (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I was an idiot?

Ryan, I just apologized to Moonriddengirl about this. I must have mistakenly clicked rollback on my watchlist, when I went to click WP:AN instead. Slap me with a trout for that one, I need more coffee...Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As soon as I posted to you, I saw that you had reverted yourself and it was obviously just a mistake. I was just worried there may be more to it. Thanks for getting back to me - It's certainly no big deal. I've done it a number of times when just going through my watchlist and hitting rollback by mistake. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak (from dates at least)

Hi Ryan, I'm taking a Wikibreak from the stressful dates issue, and have suggested to some others that they do the same. Whether or not the others take up my suggestion, I'll be doing so no matter what. I'm probably going to go back to focusing on programming (Werdna's recent BOLD update to the code has inspired me to just focus on that) and I wanted you to know that I'll be back in a week (or so) and that I have not abandoned the issue. I wish you luck. --UC_Bill (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed wording on the "generalities" of autoformatting

Since the key members of the pro-autoformatting side—UC Bill and Locke Cole—have conceded that the results of the previous RfC on “son of autoformatting” would likely repeat itself if we conducted an ArbCom-sponsored RfC (∆ here), where Locke wrote I propose putting it to the community in a generalized manner to ensure there is support for it. After all, why bother working on something if the community will shoot it down?, I am tempted to ask that you, Ryan, issue a declaratory judgement due to their default. I can’t help but suspect that they knew all along that the previous RfC was a fair measure of the true community consensus when Locke dragged us all to this ArbCom. However…

I instead propose that we do as Locke proposes: present autformatting to the community in a more generalized manner, not attached to any specific implementation such as UC Bill’s “son of autoformatting” as described above.

Please stop speaking for me or misrepresenting my statements to others. While doing so doesn't violate any particular policy or guideline that I'm aware of, it does seem to violate common sense... —Locke Cole • t • c 23:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is what I would propose for inclusion here at Draft RfC:

---

Statement by Clerk Ryan Postlethwaite:

Is the Wikipedian community receptive to date autoformatting schemes?

Scope There are a variety of proposed ways that the autoformatting of dates might be implemented on Wikipedia. The question being posed to the Wikipedian community in this RfC is whether it desires the basic, common elements that autformatting has to offer.

What is date formatting? There are two dominant ways dates are formatted in the English-speaking world. In America and many of its territories, dates are formated March 11, 2009. This is known as “MD,Y”, or for simplicity, just “MDY” format. Throughout the rest of the English-speaking world, dates are typically formated 11 March 2009, which is known as “DMY” format. The collaborative writing environment of Wikipedia and the different customs of our many contributors sometimes causes inconsistencies across Wikipedia’s articles and within articles.

What would be affected? Currently, WP:MOSNUM has a guideline governing the fixed-text format of date to use in articles. It is largely founded on the principles of consistency within the article, long-term stability, and that articles with a strong national tie to a particular country should use the date format that is customary for that country. Dates are simply written out in fixed text, such as March 11, 2009 in an American-related article.

How would autoformatting work? Autoformatting is a way of marking up dates so their format automatically changes to a preferred look for some registered editors. There are different schemes to accomplish the end. The elements in common to known schemes would call for a way to tag any given article so that it has a default date format. For instance, Chicago Cubs, which is an American-related article that is likely to have a heavily American readership, would be tagged so that regular, anonymous users (“I.P. users”), who comprise over 99% of Wikipedia’s readership, would see American-formatted dates (MDY). However, a certain segment of our readership: A) registered editors, who B) have set their date preferences to something other than “No preference”, would see dates formatted per their preference.

Effect of the change If the community expresses its desire for some method of autoformatting in this RfC, then eventually, a specific proposed scheme will one day be advanced to the community wherein dates would be surrounded with curly brackets {{March 11, 2009}} or with square brackets [[March 11, 2009]], or with some kind of template, such as [[templatename|March 11, 2009]]. As explained above, some sort of tag would establish an article-wide default format establishing the format that all I.P. users would see. It would be necessary for all dates in articles that use this scheme to be marked up with the autoformatting method in order for dates to appear consistent for all users.

Statement for:

[To be determined]

Statement against:

(456 words)

We adhere to the fundamental principle that all editors should see the same article content as regular I.P. users. The Wikipedian community does not want to have date formatting tools in articles that creates a default format for a given article for all regular I.P. readers to see, and which then provides a custom view per the preferences setting that would benefit only A) registered editors, who B) have set their date preference to something besides “No preference”.

For example, an article on United States Declaration of Independence might have a special magic word that globally establishes the date format in that article. This technique would further require that every date in an article be tagged with something like {{4 July 1776}}. When done this way, all dates in a given article could appear in the “July 4, 1776” format for all our regular, everyday, non-registered I.P. users (which is the vast majority of our readership). Registered editors however, who don’t like looking at the date format that everyone else sees would be spared from this default under this proposal. They could set their preferences in order to see only “4 July 1776.” We feel that this is totally unnecessary effort that does not benefit our I.P. readers any more than simply writing out “July 4, 1776”. We see no need whatsoever to make it any more complex.

Further, per Wikipedia:Why dates should not be linked, there is an advantage to ensuring editors see precisely what our I.P. readership sees. Editors would not be able to see when articles have inconsistent or incorrectly formated dates if they are the isolated from the article content that everyone else sees due to these proposed formatting tools. The community embraces the notion that we should not be burdening editors and page code with tools that only provide special views of article content for registered editors. The community believes that for the vast majority of circumstances, regular dates in body text should be simple fixed-text dates in a format chosen per MOSNUM guidelines governing that issue.

Just adhere to the MOSNUM guideline for the date format to use in an article, write out dates in that format in fixed text, and be done with it. There are 21 fixed-text dates in Wikipedia’s Kilogram article. Check it out. The editors there elected to use Euro-style dates since it was an article not closely associated with America (and the first major contributor is an American no less!) Do you see anything broken there? We don’t either. I.P. users and registered editors see the exact same thing. Horsing around with autoformatting just so a few registered editors can be spared the displeasure of looking at Euro-style dates in that article is beyond unnecessary.

---

Ryan, we had reached an impasse with the pro-autoformatting group over my above proposed wording regarding UC Bill’s “son of autoformatting” since they refused to write a statement for in support of it. I claim no “ownership” of the above “Statement by Clerk Ryan Postlethwaite”. It is my best effort at divining the “general attributes” of autoformatting (in general in a generalized way). It was made doubly tough by what was a less-than-helpful response by the other side to specific questions on that point. Getting nowhere with that tact, I’ve taken the liberty of posting the above proposal. All are free to edit away on the “Statement by Clerk Ryan Postlethwaite”-portion. And, of course, they need to fill in the “Statement for” section too. Greg L (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion area for this

I would want to protect ANTM redirects indefinite....

Hey Ryan. I just would you to know to full protect indefinitely the following:

• April Wilkner
• Ann Markley
• Jade Cole
• Jenah Doucette
• Bianca Golden

Since you re-created as a redirect when their last protection wasn't completed to expire the last protected dates. You protect them all that any anonymous user to create these articles again. --ApprenticeFan Messages Work 05:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Post to Draft RfC

Ryan, I’ve taken the liberty of adding, here at Draft RfC#Autoformatting, proposed wording for the ArbCom-sponsored RfC with regard to autformatting. I’ve done my best to make the Statement by clerk portion as factual and balanced as possible. Per suggestions from the pro-autoformatting side,[8] I’ve abandoned trying to present the question of autoformatting based upon one specific implementation of autoformatting (UC Bill’s “Son of autoformatting”), and have revised it to address—as best I could—the “generalities” of autoformatting as it might be implemented via various techniques. I hope you give it a look and correct any errors or biased wording you can find. Then we can see if the rest of the community can correct any factual errors you and I have missed. By posting it to the new venue, I hope to get wider community input on it than it has received above.

I ask only this of editors from the pro-autoformatting camp: if you think I have done a poor job in my post, I ask that you 1) first try to work in good faith on revising what is there, or 2) if you find that what I have has too many shortcomings to even begin working with, don’t delete it; simply post your own proposal below it. In advance, thanks. Greg L (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What’s next??

Ryan,

As you can see, here at User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Draft RfC, all the important blanks have been filled in and it hasn’t seen much activity lately. Such a state of affairs will naturally get one thinking about “what’s next.” So… what’s your planned timeline going forward? Greg L (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the "for" text is far from complete. Revisions are forthcoming. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah… still in flux. Supposedly, the Statement for is now being worked on to improve it beyond what I could “borrow” from one of UC Bill’s posts. Let’s maintain the head of steam on this and not let it peter out? Greg L (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is far from finished - We still have the other sides proposals to add. I've been trying to find people to work on this, but to no avail so far. I'll have another look tonight. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for refactoring for me. I'm not a regular at RFAR.  Frank  |  talk  19:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »

  — 16 March 2009

• News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable deletion of key, relevant information

Ryan,

Ckatz keeps on doing this sort of edit to User:Ryan_Postlethwaite/Draft_RfC#Background_statement. The effect is to change this:

Effect of a “Support” consensus. If the community expressed its desire here to re-introduce the concept of autoformatting, a new system would be developed. The developers don’t know exactly what sort of technique might be offered in the final analysis, but as of the time of this RfC, techniques under consideration would have dates be surrounded with curly brackets {{March 11, 2009}} or with square brackets [[March 11, 2009]], or with some kind of template, such as [[templatename|March 11, 2009]]. As explained above, some sort of tag would establish a default format that would be displayed for IP users in each article. It would be necessary for all dates in articles that use this scheme to be marked up with the autoformatting method.

…to this:

What happens if autoformatting is accepted? If the community expresses its desire here to re-introduce the concept of autoformatting, a new system will be developed, based either on a modified version of the existing software or on a new markup or template scheme. It would allow for a default format that would be displayed for IP users in each article. As with the existing system, all dates in articles would need to be marked up with the autoformatting syntax.

My position on this is clear at on the talk page here. In a nutshell, the opposing side stated that they didn’t want the RfC to be on a specific implementation (UC Bill’s “Son of autoformatting) as the community would reject it. So they said they wanted the RfC to be on the “generalities” of autoformatting. Asking that the community vote on “generalities” can not be used a pretense to avoid fairly disclosing what is truly being considered; this is wholly unacceptable.

Those who are voting on the RfC can’t be expected to guess what the general nature of some new autoformatting scheme might be. We must fairly disclose the general nature of what is known about implementing autoformatting. We shouldn’t have to disclose and clarify the nature of what is being considered in our Statement against, the nature of the basic “ah Ha” belongs solidly in the factual background information.

What we have in that section is close enough to being done (with the exception of Ckatz’s edits, which were done under the pretense of making the disclosed nature less “vague” and “more direct”) that I believe it is time for you to have a hand in finishing that section off with some final edits, adding your name to it (Statement by clerk Ryan Postlethwaite), including properly disclosing the true scope and nature of what is really being proposed (the upper wording). Greg L (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I will temporarily add the disputed text in dispute to our Statement against. I believe this is the wrong place to finally let voters on the RfC understand what is truly under consideration. Greg L (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Bluck

Boston (talk) has given you a fresh piece of fried chicken! Pieces of fried chicken promote WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot piece, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of fried chicken by adding {{subst:GiveChicken}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Boston (talk) 08:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Time for some hands-on

Ryan, please see this by Arthur Rubin on Draft RfC. Arthur has to know that what he is proposing isn’t likely to be well supported by the community. It is “alternative” wording that runs 180° contrary to what is already there. Greg L (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, that's precisely what we want! I want opposing viewpoints to yours and Tony's so the community has a choice. What's the point of running an RfC with just one viewpoint? I've just had a bit of a rant here and I ask you take a look because it makes clear my concerns. You two aren't having this all your own way - you've both had your say and your parts are now included - I suggest you take a step back and let others handle it for a bit. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 06:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for edit

See this. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you also put the notice up on the other pages (Evidence, main case page) too? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, give me 5 minutes - I'm just eating! ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah sorry, it's only mid-afternoon over here; perhaps your tea time? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I copied your notice to WT:FLC, and am tempted to do the same for WT:RFA, it would give them something to do. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - I was in need of a hearty tea after a full day at work! Don't post at WT:RFA - you'll only get a bad response from people asking "why here?!" - Feel free to post it wherever you want though, and by all means use my sig to post it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

We've already got a couple WP:LAME response ;) Dabomb87 (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I spotted that. Oh well, I suppose it is well deserved! Anyway, tea over and notices done! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Scott Alexander

could you semi prot Scott Alexander for a while? it's received a huge amount of IP vandalism recently. thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Notification re. proposed temporary injunction in Obama articles case

Since you're a clerk in the Obama articles arbcom case, and I don't know if there's additional procedure to be followed, I'm notifying you about Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Workshop#Temporary injunction: non-interference with relevant policy and other related guidance for the duration of this case - unless I hear something from you I suppose I handled this properly, and arbcom members will know where and how to find this proposal to make a determination whether to accept it. Same message to the "other" clerk. Please contact me if something is unclear. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Karmaisking

Thanks for blocking his latest sock. I'm happy with revert, block and ignore, but don't have "block" powers. If you could watch Systemic Risk and block KiK as he appears there (he doesn't try to conceal himself), that would be great. JQ (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask you to look again at semi-protecting Systemic risk? Two more sock attacks since you blocked the last one. It won't stop. JQ (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

And another today (sigh)JQ (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked and protected. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! JQ (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

May I expect the same of the other side?

Of course, I wasn’t serious with those two edits where I changed the typestyle to de-emphasize some words. May I ask that Earle abide by the same courtesy we’ve been affording him? Greg L (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

See my comment on the talk page. I've left your revert of his edits in place. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ron

Dear Ryan (If I may) could you please revert Ron Broxted to the 18.58 edit of toda and then "LOCK" it? Only for my use. Is it possible to obtain the IP address for "Prof Homerton " & "Dr Hugh Janus"? Many Thanks, R. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Broxted (talk • contribs) 20:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

• From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
• Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
• News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Question

I noticed your thread on AN/I about the date linking proposal. I'm not trying to be smart, but by the time I was done reading everyone's comments - I wasn't sure if we were allowed to comment on the talk page of that proposal or not. Should I just wait until next Monday? — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 08:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ched. Thanks for your question. Whilst I could probably get away with showing that AN/I thread as consensus for my actions (everybody uninvolved commented with me, and the only people who dissented were involved with the issue), it'll cause too much trouble if I did do that. In short, editing any page is fine by me. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The above statement that "everybody uninvolved commented with [you]" is inaccurate; I have had absolutely no involvement in the debate at any point, and I quite clearly responded to the AN/I thread with strong opposition to your plan. That I opted to do so on the poll's talk page (explicitly noting that I was led there by the AN/I discussion) is irrelevant.

Regardless, the argument that only the individuals you sought to bar from editing the page disagreed would not be a particularly compelling one.

So thank you for backing away from this idea. —David Levy 20:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, can you link me to where you stated on AN/I that you were strongly opposed to the idea? I can't find it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, I responded on the poll's talk page (explicitly noting that I was led there by the AN/I discussion). I did so to avoid fueling a "forest fire" (a situation in which a heated debate rages on multiple fronts). I hope that you aren't now citing this as some sort of technicality. —David Levy 21:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I do apologise David, I missed your post completely - When I was referring to AN/I, I didn't realise there was a comment from you on the poll talk. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem; that was my assumption. I might not agree with your methods, but I don't doubt your sincerity. —David Levy 00:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm completely uninvolved, and have never commented at the date delinking RFAR or the poll. I opposed your plans as you outlined them on ANI. So, no, everybody uninvolved didn't comment in your favour. Did you miss my ANI posts (there were two), or are you saying I'm (secretly) (somehow) involved in this issue? I'm not. Bishonen | talk 12:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC).

Disruption by Locke

Ryan, Locke should have had an across-the-board block. No one should have to put up with this. Greg L (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Protection of the RFC

You can remove the protection on the RFC whenever you like, I have no intent to edit that page and I wouldn't want to hold up "progress" since I'm sure Greg, Ohconfucius, and Tony are excited and want a chance to edit it unopposed. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Your restoring of year option #3

Ryan, did you notice that I folded the contents of #3 into #2? There is no reason for #3 now. Greg L (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That proposal was number 4, I just readded it as number 3. It's far different from proposal number two so still needs asking - it's not possible to incorporate 2 and 3 together. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I see what you've done. Let me have a think about it - I'll revert myself for now. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. Earle and Ckatz were at peace with it. Please, I see that the two camps are converging here. Greg L (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, I see what you've done - all looks good. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a chance that the two camps might converge on the month-day issue too. Proposals 1 and 2 are not quite what one would call different. I will add a proposal at the talk later today. Tony (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC

The end of Saturday—that is, midnight Saturday, is certainly better than the start of Saturday, i.e., midnight Friday, which is what I had assumed.

The interruption last night and the sudden changes to the Background statement, I believe done at the end strategically, are making it very difficult to get the page into reasonable shape in time. By "reasonable", I mean something that other users won't scoff at. There has been a bit of that already.

I'd love to get this thing out of the way soon as much as you would, and end of Saturday would be idea. But it has taken on an unpredictable direction. Can we work towards end of Saturday and hope that it can be done? I'd be upset if it couldn't. Tony (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I assume you both are talking in UTC terms, correct? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am presuming that's Ryan's understanding too. It is still a rush to get this in order by midnight tomorrow night UTC. Tony (talk) 06:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Onerous response requirements

Ryan, I don't know whether it was Greg or you or someone else, but we seem to have gone back to requiring users to enter nine preferences/comments and sign each (one for DA, four each for the other two). My change a day ago so that users need only make one entry for each of the month-day and the year questions seemed logical, since, as worded (and presumably uncontested), only one text for each can be inserted into the style guides. Outside people are already pissed that it's so complex.

Is there some reason we can't go back to the "state your first preference (#1, #2, #3 or #4), with comments if you wish? Otherwise, it will be just impossible to make sense of. Edit-conflicts and huge scrolling will be the order of the day, even before the impossible task of interpretation. I've left a note linking to her from CKatz's page. Tony (talk) 06:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What I've just changed it back to is approval voting - this is where you support the options that you want. If people have a preference for one, they will only support one - they don't have to vote for every single proposal. It's a significant improvement from when we had support/oppose columns - now that would have gotten tedius by the end had everyone been required to vote in 9 different questions. Now there's just three questions to answer. If we start having a section with a mixture of votes then it's going to make the poll completely ambigious and basically a total mess with a lot of mangled information to parse at the end of it. Can we just leave that bit as is please? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 08:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, l note you've removed "also" from that option. It was on the basis of that word that I assumed it was an add-on to the previous proposal. Thus, I inserted "#2 plus". But if you think it's not an add-on, I wonder whether the title should be modified to remove the #2 plus. I'm a little confused. Who's the author? Tony (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tony. I removed the "also" because it's supposed to be an entirely separate proposal - it specifically wasn't meant to be an extension of two else I'd probably have suggested letting them go together. You can see my reasoning for that here. In a nutshell, the proposals are quite contradictory so they can go together. I'd suggest the title needs to be changed to reflect this. Maybe "Link one time only"? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Old mediation... How to Bypass

I am presently filing for formal mediation on Transcendental Meditation but am finding an old mediation from 2007 in place. Not sure how to bypass that to apply for a new mediation. Thanks for any help you can give on this.(olive (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

I see that if I add a date ...2009 to Transcendental Mediation I come up with a new page and bypass the old mediation request ....Is that OK.(olive (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

From what I can see from your contribs, you haven't created the mediation yet. If there is already Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Transcendental Meditation, then I suggest you create Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Transcendental Meditation 2 - that's what we normally do. Also, I'll get back to your email in a second. Hope that helps, but if you need anything else don't hesitate to ask. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to include any editors who were interested in the mediation application so left a message for each asking if they were interested in being included, clearly stating that this did not mean they agreed to the mediation just that they were available. Some have not responded and another who is a major contributor to the discussion has said, no. 1.) Can editors names be added to a mediation even after the mediation has been started? Can editors not named in a mediation be part of mediation discussion. 2.) I'd like to make sure anyone who wants to be part of the mediation can be even if initially they may not have wanted to.(olive (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

Circumcision is propaganda

I need advice on how to help fix the Circumcision topic. Should I file a mediation request? Should I give up?

The problem reads something like this:

Facts actively denied the reader include: 1. Circumcision frequently includes frenectomy; 2. Sexual effects of frenectomy, and of different methods of circumcision; 3. Original religious circumcision procedure; 4. Complications from circumcision. Please see a partial list of relevant referenced facts actively removed and or denied the reader.[9] Discussion is a sham because of dominant pro-circ motivations.

Odd evidence of a cabal, but please see [10] and note the predominance religious supporters who had never worked on Circumcision but still voted for Jakew. Also odd evidence, but please look at the admins who worked on my last block[11] … never worked in circumcision and cracking religious jokes.

Mostly, look at circumcision topic content and judge relevance, and evidence of propaganda. Look at the length, driven mostly by repeated discussion of medical benefits. Almost all circumcisions (all neonatal) are non-therapeutic! Why isn’t "non-therapeutic" in the intro? Why is HIV in the intro? Why is the edit text so messed up and jumbled with cumbersome links and text not included the topic?

I understand that Wiki is not set up to establish final content and then freeze a topic. Frequently topics are dominated by special interests. Trying to fix content is impossible without neutral editors. Circimcision will always be a mess.

The cabal in circumcision currently seeks to remove POV/fact tags,[12] so please, at least, please try to maintain those warnings. I understand that Wiki can’t eliminate a topic, but currently, the reader is mislead by Wiki content.TipPt (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Some things

Ryan, I left notes saying that the poll starts on 30 March at the forums where notices were previously posted. I just wanted to thank you for your work. Even though we (as a collective group of pro-linkers and anti-linkers) have had to battle it out every inch of the way, progress is being made. Your initial efforts were vital in helping us move forward. I was impressed by your coolness throughout; except for a few instances in which you became a bit overprotective of the poll, you have managed to not blow your top, a very hard thing to do in this neck of the woods! I won't be around for a day and a half, but I hope for your sake (and everybody else's sanity) that things go smoothly. Thanks again.

Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak help

Could I please get a hand at User:JohnnyMrNinja/monobook.js? I'm confused by Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak_Enforcer - I'm not quite sure what I'm doing, but I know that it's wrong. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, I don't get it. If you see this in the next few days and can fix it until April 1, that'd be great. If not, no big deal. Thanks! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Uniformity

Greg unilaterally revised both date delinking questions, and Arthur Rubin expressed disagreement on talk, and I reformatted one of them, not expecting a protection; can you reformat them to match?

I should prefer the version on the first question, which permits split opinions. As I shall explain at the RfC, Greg's formulation makes it difficult to express my opinion; and therefore dissuades me from believing the poll conclusive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi PM. As it happens, Greg was right with the formatting - it's a poll and we need to be clear about that. There's a comments box below each set of proposals where opposition can be expressed if needs be. Sorry, I know that's not what you wanted to hear. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist notice for teh poll

Hi. First, congratulations on your work on this daunting case... Although I would suggest to discuss the inclusion of the poll at the watchlist-notice talk page first, just to have a rough consensus, to avoid complaints arising almost systematically when they are too many notices or one is added without discussion. Thanks, Cenarium (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your post Cenarium. Could you possibly handle the watchlist notice for me? I can't find the talk page (bad I know!) to comment on. All we need is a simple talk page message expressing that we wish to use the watchlist for the poll. Many thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

A sideline issue

Ryan, from my small experience of the WP:CIVILITY page, I've been interacting with an admin who's tinkering with an essay on civility warnings. I've raised on the talk page of that essay what might be a novel protocol for admins to deal with some cases of incivility, particularly where it involves experienced editors. Your feedback would be welcome. No rush, given the other circumstances we find ourselves in. Tony (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Two important administrative matters

Ryan, thanks for reinstating the clarity of the words "I support" in the month-day responses.

In doing this, I think you overlooked the prior removal of the guidance to voters in the lead (Please indicate your support vote under ONE option, accompanied by a concise explanation for your choice. Your explanation is important in determining the community consensus.) which was of course consistent for all three questions.

In addition, the word "Option" seems to have gone astray in the first header (i.e., for Option #1).

Would you mind reinstating both the guidance, and the word "Option", to preserve consistency on both counts. Tony (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I've corrected the error - apologies for protecting it with the error there in the first place. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of the RFC

Barring my objections to the last minute changes from support/oppose voting to simple approval voting, I do hope you've considered keeping those closely involved with this from attempting to create a stacked vote as I suggested some time ago. Blocking those of us involved may be a bit much, but certainly allowing a week of community discussion sans our input could prove useful at achieving something that truly reflects what the community thinks. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tried hard to get neutral opinions, but nobody seems willing (or bothered) to take a look. I just don't see the point in delaying the start of the poll simply to try and get opinions that aren't going to materialise. As it happens, I think the poll is now well structured and will give a good chance at giving a successful outcome. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't fully agree. The subtitles for options 1 should read "link only relevant ... articles" (emphasis added; should not be in the RfC itself.) I haven't actually stated a position in this RfC, but my position would be that year option 2 more accurately reflects "link only relevant years". I did comment on the article talk page, but the subtitle was set less then 24 hours before the lockdown, and I didn't have a chance to comment before the lockdown. The previous subtitle, "conservative", was just too ambiguous. I think perhaps we should just eliminate the subtitles. It might confuse some editors, but it wouldn't mislead them. I concur that waiting for opinions from previously uninvolved editors seems counterproductive, but think that the vote-for-one language makes the poll results unusable unless it produced a clear supermajority for a single option, and perhaps not even then. The opinions expressed in the poll could still be usable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

see the mess I've created?

I always wondered about that in your sig. would you referring to this. lol - I'm just kidding Ryan, I think you do a GREAT job. I really don't understand all the hostility on the talk page either - I don't understand why it's such a big deal really. But, then again, the first time I read the MOS talk page my jaw damn near hit the ground. Seems like some of the most trivial things can drive a normally sane, intelligent person to say some of the most outrageous things. Anyway, when it's up, I'll post my 2-cents worth of !vote, and I think you've done a great job on this all the way around. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 22:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think some would argue that the poll and talk page is just one huge mess :-) Any time people care about a particular issue and have conflicting views, there's the potential for a flame war. It's a lot easier to do over the internet. I suspect if we could get all the participants together in one place, we could settle the dispute through friendly discussion (opposing sides might even get along!). Unfortunately, that's not possible and all we've got is an online medium. As it happens, I don't think this has been anyone's best time here (including mine), but, in the end we've managed to create a very good poll which I have high hopes for. We've certainly made the best out of a less than ideal situation. Many thanks for your kind words by the way - they really are appreciated! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] links

Ryan, please make sure that [edit] links appear for each voting subsection when you go prime-time. I’m not sure why they don’t show now. It could be because of transclusion, or it could be because of the jump from triple-equal level (===) to quintuple-equal (=====), or just because the transcluded page is locked (which will solve the problem instantly). Please keep an eye peeled on this issue though. Greg L (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It's because the page is protected at the minute - as soon as it's unprotected, you'll see the edit links. No need to worry :-) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Poll

Aren't you one hour early ? :) Cenarium (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

God damn it, it's British Summer Time. I only just remembered. I've never been caught out before. Oh well, I think it's best we keep it open now I've posted all the notifications. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Note

I'm going to bed shortly. I'm afraid that any comments/questions regarding Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll will have to wait for at least 8 hours (unless you can get them in extremely quickly!). All the best everyone! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Karmaisking again

Could you block User:GoldManTookFtKnox, the latest KiK sock, please. He kept below the radar long enough to attack some semi-protected articles unfortunately.JQ (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC). Also User:FreeToDecide, and semi-protection needed for Full reserve banking. Thanks in advance. JQ (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable disruption via disputed tag

(*sign*) Ryan, why is there this {disputed} tag on month-day and here too on years at this juncture? Talk about disruptive… Greg L (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. PMAnderson’s assertions that the vote structure was put there by a single editor via editwarring is a total lie that amounts to a personal attack. He knows full well that this had been addressed above here on your talk page as well as (in depth) here on the RfC talk page. He knows the voting structure has been fully deliberated and is endorsed by you, the supervising clerk, and that it is official. His actions are purely disruptive. Greg L (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have taken the liberty of removing all of the attempts of Manderson to disrupt the proceedings. There is the possibility that many editors will not even get so far, but I am not willing to take the risk. My removals will certainly be viewed by Mandy as provocative. However, I consider this covered by WP:Vandalism, and will perform as many reverts as necessary to preserve the integrity of the poll. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Really? I thought it was your decision, Ryan, which I would have protested, but abided by. This is unacceptable, and I will propose bans for both these cheats. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

additional edit needed under "disadvantages of month-day markup"

when you cleared up that "clarification needed" moment (thank you!) by conflating the two points about bot/script recognition of date strings, this "rejoinder" under "Disadvantages of month-day markup" was supposed to be removed at the same time:

2. Redundant for avoiding ambiguity, when standard punctuation and the correct preposition are used ("In June, 19 planes departed", versus "On June 19, planes departed").

i hope it's not too late to remove that, because it makes no (0) sense. Sssoul (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

ps: here's a link to the section of the RfC where the edit is needed. Sssoul (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The page isn't protected, so feel free to make those minor changes. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

all right, i've made the change, trusting you will back it up if it's challenged. thanks.

would changing the "subtitles" of the two "Option 1s" be regarded as a "minor change" as well? "Option 1: link only to relevant date/year articles" is the proposal, and it would make Arthur Rubin happier. Sssoul (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

the poll

Hey Ryan, I did !vote, and have even commented once or twice on the talk page. I also watchlisted, and am interested in following this - but not really to debate back and forth on the talk page - I'll simply "go with the flow", and move in whatever direction community consensus takes things. If (and I know that it's a month or more down the road) we get to the second poll - and if you think of it, I wouldn't mind a poke on my talk page as to the addy of new pole. Another note: Have you considered splitting the poll on the second go around into 2 separate polls 1.) for the linking issue and a second for the auto-formatting issue? Just a thought - in case it hadn't crossed your mind. If it's already been discussed in detail, I apologize - I tend to read the beginning of things like that talk page, and just jump to the "bottom line" so to speak. Oh well, best of luck with this, at least you're getting a rather large turn-out. ;P — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 11:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ched. We haven't yet decided whether or not there's going to be a second round of polling - it all depends on these results. The second poll will be more of an implementation poll (how to implement the first polls results) so we'll have to see what happens. I'll certainly keep you posted with what's going to happens. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Poll now open

Hi Ryan,

You mentioned at some of the parts of the Village pump that the poll is open. I took the liberty of mentioning it at the other parts of the Village pump and in some other relevant places. I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

• From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
• Special report: Community weighs license update
• News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ee, that were a while ago! ☺

I've been doing some reorganisation of my talk archives, and thought I'd have a random look around at the WP world a couple of years ago. And there you are, popping up in this archive, being accused of being a nazi fag (or was it a fag nazi?) getting into arguments… Eeh, them were the days (I remember when it were all fields round 'ere, and aren't the policemen lookin' younger?. Wouldn't it be great if all the inspiring speeches our politicians come up with were so easily lookable-up and fully-non-deniable two years after the event? Just thought you might like a nostalgic look back at those salad days, anyway. How ya doing, mate? Tonywalton ^Talk 23:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving response comments

I'm not the greatest fan of moving reponse comments on polling pages (e.g. to here). The point of providing comments (in situ) is that obvious misunderstandings can be read by people who are about to vote—which could perhaps help them to make up their minds. There is no way that anyone (who is about to vote) is going to scroll to the end of the page to read out-of-place comments. This shouldn't be about neatness. Cheers.  HWV258  00:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Large essays starting to appear in the voting section

Ryan, two more in the past few hours, (Numbers 90 and 92 in the Support section). Rather long for a vote, don't you think? I wonder what the "Comments on date autoformatting" section is for? Where is the boundary. I'd have though four or five lines maximum.

I see that CKatz removed a much smaller post by HWV258 earlier, and again, but has acted to reinstate the essay (No. 90) I earlier relocated to the Comments section.

I want to take issue with these points. Why are people being allowed a soap box to push poll? If this is not redressed, I'll be expanding my vote into a huge essay, responding to these other essays. It will lead to a migration of long discussions from the talk page and "Comments" section right into the voting sections. Unwieldy and probably an introduction of a whole lot of push polling.

I've posted this at the Poll talk page, too. Tony (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

DA poll

Ryan, a question: would it be worth adding a reinforcement notice somewhere around the top of the date autoformatting "Responses" section to remind people that the question is about the principle of autoformatting? There are a fair number of responses that are mixing linked dates and autoformatting as one and the same, which may skew the results. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this all day as well - I think it's important that voters are clear what they are voting for. I've gone ahead and added a notice to the top of the responses section. Hopefully that will make things as clear as possible. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

i've added a suggestion here that perhaps someone should create an editnotice to clarify the point - it might help. Sssoul (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible canvassing

This also needs your attention. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(Copied from the talk page.) --Sapphic (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've had a look at this and I believe it is canvassing. I've therefore asked Sapphic not to contact any other users on their talk page for the remainder of the poll. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No disrespect, but you're wrong here, Ryan. Maybe I violated some other policy/guideline/whatever (though if that's so, I can't find it anywhere) but WP:CANVAS applies to messages sent to people who have not already participated in a poll. I explain my actions in a lot more detail in the sub-section immediately below. So, unless you can point me at some policy I actually did violate, I'm going to just keep doing what I've been doing. Glad you're feeling better. --Sapphic (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Your behavior, Sapphic, doesn’t require that everyone go “Gee, we don’t have an explicit rule to cover this new kind of disruption so let’s amend the rules.” Badgering people to change their vote in an RfC when they haven’t asked for help or clarification (or obviously voted in the wrong section or something) isn’t tolerated. Since you are A) not changing a single vote that I can tell, and B) are simply just making a pest or yourself, and C) obviously don’t respond to social pressure, and D) don’t give a damn if you’re blocked, I’ll leave it to some other poor bastard to deal with you. Greg L (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no rule to cover the situation because it's not disruption. I just did what people on both sides were talking about, but everybody was too scared to do because they all apparently misunderstand both the purpose and wording of WP:CANVAS. There is no longer any question as to whether the "confused" oppose votes understand what they were voting on. They all now do, and all but one (who, much to my surprise, actually did change his vote) has clarified their position — in non-"confused" terms — on the poll page. Anyway, I proposed a way to end at least the autoformatting part of the debate, over under that "exit strategies" section. All bold. Hard to miss. Go check it out, you might be pleasantly surprised. --Sapphic (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Note to all

I'm not very well today. As weird as it sounds, I think I've drunk too much coffee and it's made me feel terrible. I'm sorry for not answering any replies on this talk - I'll get to them as soon as I can tomorrow (although I have work all day). Apologies to everyone that's commented above. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Irish coffee? :-)  HWV258  22:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Gut wull sun. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 23:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hope ya feel better when you get up. :) (you really didn't miss all that much) — Ched :  Yes?   : ©  00:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your replies guys - as it happens, it wasn't Irish coffee (but a load of espresso and energy drinks. Needless to say, I've stayed off the stuff today (sort of had to because I felt awful this morning). It was worse than a hangover! :-) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Meh. Try having a hangover and then trying to cure it with six double ristretti. You end up with a hangover and your hair trying to crawl out of your head because of the caffeine. Urg. Glad you're back. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I got drunk on Friday night and still had a headache on Monday. I feel like my trials are being demeaned! :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 00:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ryan. One of the sickest I ever got was trying to get out an order of some ammunition for an overseas order. I was in my mid-20s. At crunch time (machinery was acting up) I drank a boat load of coffee and some No-Doze tablets (caffeine) and worked through the night until sunrise. Then I got sick. Holy smokes I was sick. IMO, it’s not so much the coffee, it’s the energy drinks. Coffee contains something like over a hundred pharmacologically active alkaloids; it’s a complex brew and it’s hard to O.D. on the stuff. But when you spike yourself with a boat load of pure caffeine from energy drinks, you can make yourself feel just like you felt. Greg L (talk) 01:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Dunmanway "Massacre"

Hi young Ryan - check this at AE and Talk:Dunmanway Massacre. There is a tag referring to the AE at the talk page but the conclusions are unclear bar they want me to be polite and "toned down". What I want to do is propose to move Dunmanway Massacre to Dunmanway Shootings as 'massacre' is not comonly used to describe the incidents and they didn't all occur in Dunmanway. The term was invented for polemical reasons and is classic WP:OR. Could you propose the move? Sarah777 (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

• Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
• News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
• WikiProject report: WikiProject China
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

James Cawley

I have tried editing James Cawley with the truth about who's money has built and funded the New Voyages project and that he was an extra in the new Star Trek movie. These are both true statements and yet he and his "followers" kept deleting my edits. So that the article makes him sound better than he is. When I posted an article of a group that truly researches the fact they re-edit my change saying Memory Alpha can not be trusted. If that is so, is anything that comes out of James mouth to be trusted. Why don't you call up Paramount and ask them what he did on the movie. Why don't you ask the people that have donated thousands upon thousands of dollars to New Voyages. Finally why don't you ask James to provide you with tax returns of the last couple of years. You will see that his "day job" is not an Elvis Impersonator.
Please help me resolve this. Actually he should not even be in the Wikipedia. He says he is an actor. A true actor belongs to one of the Guilds, he belongs to none. As for film producer, if I shoot a film with a video camera and it is not sold to anyone does that give me the right to call myself a producer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.27.133 (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

They have done it again. Please help me resolve this situation. Your wikipedia is being over run by people who like to use only half truths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.27.133 (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of DFT, I'd point out that the user has been offered many opportunities to present reliable citations for what appear to be, at best, a negative impression of the subject of the article. So far, they appear unable or unwilling to provide support. BLP means that potentially disparaging information needs to be well-documented. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And since they would not stop adding the same edits, the user has been reported for 3RR. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

James Cawley: arbitrary break

Please help me with Arcayne (cast a spell) and others. They think an interview with James Cawley is valid. While Memory Alpha who has researched multiple sources is more truthful. The basic changes I want is James Cawley was an extra on the new Star Trek movie but they keep deleting my edit. Also they do not want people to know that James Cawley did not himself spend $100,000 to build the set. Hey just go to the New Voyages website and they are always asking for money. James does not work. Maybe in the past he was an Elvis impersonator but when was the last time he was employed. Why is this so hard to believe this is the truth?173.55.27.133 (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What published, reliable, and/or verifiable sources have you offered to back up your assertations? None, so far as I can see. As I've mentioned to you on the Cawley talk page, not only is Memora Alpha a wiki (and therefore not a reliable source, you've also vandalized the Cawley article there as well.

You're trying to give motives to other people that have no basis in reality. You do not know for a fact that Cawley is an extra - none of us can know that until the film comes out. The present wording is accurate - yours, while possibily true, is unsourced, which is why it gets removed. Your speculations here about SAG or pay don't mean anything - heck, for all we know, they gave him a few lines and Taft-Hartley'ed him, which makes it all a moot point - but I'm not putting that in the article, because a) it's irrelvant right now, and b)again, unsourced.

Also, you keep claiming "everyone knows" certain things... again, reliable sources? You want us to take everything you say at face value, but I'm sorry, but an anonymous person hiding behind an IP from Murietta, CA isn't exactly a great source. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you have blocked me from editing and have taken my 1st Amendment right but you are allowed to write anything. I will let you put in James Cawley was an extra in the Star Trek movie because he said it. I have printed out the Trekmovie page so do not have them delete it. Please add James Cawley was an extra in the Star Trek Film. The reference being James own words....http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/12/editorial-james-cawley-on-the-new-star-trek-movie/

"121. James Cawley - November 12, 2008 To those of you who feel I have sold out etc. You are dead wrong. NO ONE loves The Orignal Star Trek more than me. No one is more devoted to it’s look and feel, for Christ’s sake, I own a full scale bridge set and play Kirk in my spare time! I have poured more of my life into classic Trek than I care to discuss. Being an extra in the film has nothing to do with my opinion either. "

Please tell me this is enough for you now and add that he was an extra. Thank you173.55.27.133 (talk) 04:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.27.133 (talk)

Pardon me, but wouldn't this discussion be better suited to the article discussion for James Cawley? Seriously, Ryan's a dandy, eclectic fellow, but this is simply clutter here. Take it to the discussion page, 173anon; that' where it belongs. I am sure that, if Ryan is so inclined, he will keep a watchful eye or two on the situation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

PedMen

I'd love some help if you got time. :) None of the mentors are as active as they once were, & I could use a hand. You have muh more experience in the topic. hmwithτ 18:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ryan, there's a bit of an issue with one of the articles, but so far it's not like the kind of heated incidents we've seen on the related pages in the past. The question is being discussed by several editors and at this point it looks like it will be resolved by the references and consensus. Your help would certainly be welcome to keep things on the positive track. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys - I've got one more day left at work before a bit of a break so I'll get on with it tomorrow. Hope that's ok for everyone. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Cooling my jets too

Ryan, I just saw your note over on Greg's talk page (I noticed my name in one of his edit comments) and although you haven't (yet?) asked me to stay away from the poll talk page, I'm going to do so anyway. The "proposed compromise" I've mentioned there is just this: we give the date autoformatting opponents everything they want (disable the DA software entirely, allow mass de-linking by script/bot/whatever) in exchange for them staying out of the development process for some replacement software. When the replacement software is ready, it would be put up for community approval/rejection. I had thought that the proposal would meet with enough approval that it could be enacted rather quickly, and although nobody on the pro-autoformatting side has voiced any complaint, people on the anti-autoformatting side are vehemently opposed to it, for reasons that honestly baffle me. Perhaps it's just because I was the one proposing it? In any event, I don't think deferring to the Wikimedia developers is a good idea. I'll stay away for at least a few days (maybe longer if it seems to improve things) and I hope you can come up with a workable solution to this mess. Good luck. --Sapphic (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

Ryan, sorry to ask, but what are the rules with regards to canvassing about the RfC? I've just become aware that Tony1 has posted twenty or more notes to people who participated in a previous poll regarding autoformatting, encouraging them to vote. (Sample text: "However, I'm afraid this issue is the subject of another RFC which proposes among other things the addition of long template strings to dates." "You may wish to make your views known again on this same issue, whatever your opinion now. It's open until Monday, I think") Further investigation shows that Lightmouse is contacting dozens of editors who have used his date-delinking script (ostensibly, people who would oppose DA) to encourage them to vote. If this is kosher, so be it - but given the stink raised over Sapphic's recent talk page posts, this doesn't seem right. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, it would be nice to see some feedback from you on this. Unlike Sapphic's talk page comments (which were not canvassing, the people being talked to were already aware of the RFC and had already voiced an opinion, Sapphic was engaging in further discussion which should never be discouraged in a consensus seeking environment) Tony and Lightmouse have contacted editors who were not aware of the RFC (or at least, who had not already voiced an opinion) to try and gain additional support. Is ArbCom aware of this disruption? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Stay off my page

Stay off my page, keep your veiled threats for those who deserve them like you mate Neurolysis. You had not the common decency to challenge him on Wikipedia for his trashing posts, so just keep away from me. OK. Giano (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe Neurolysis is a mate of mine - I simply spoke to him because I felt what he did was wrong. I didn't have a quiet pally word with him - I laid into the guy quite a bit actually. But fair enough, I'll stay clear of your talk page. (I would however note that there was not a single threat in my post to your talk page, just a simple request which you could have taken however you wished and a bit of advice). Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your order

Here is your requested fish [13]:

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Would you share it? I think I deserve a bite or two for bumping your AN thread without double-checking the dates. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, excellent - just what I needed! ;-) Unfortunately, I refuse to share this! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Your block of Lightmouse

Just wanted to let you know that since you last checked, Lightmouse has given more legitimate reasons for his actions. Also, a seemingly uninvolved admin has offered his opinion. See [14]. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been following it, yet I don't believe anyone has said anything that I didn't already know. Lightmouse sent the emails (I know exactly what was sent in them) and there's no changing that. I might unblock him ealier (i.e. when the poll finishes) but he won't be taking any further part in the poll. Any edit he makes to the poll page or talk page will be met with a block. He's disrupted the poll and now made it skewed - he's no longer welcome to participate further in it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mean that the entire poll is invalidated. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the whole poll isn't invalidated, but it's not a reliable as it was. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, while I appreciate that this is frustrating, the poll attracted well over 500 WPians—such a large sample that it is difficult to influence its outcome in any significant way. Tony (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I respect that, but if people aren't happy with the results, it's one more reason for them to dissent it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we should also note that not all parts of the poll were affected equally. There has obviously been more efforts (by both sides) to garner !votes on autoformatting; check the numbers—about 260 !votes on year linking, but nearly 500 !votes on autoformatting. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide a verbatim copy of one of the e-mails (sans identifying information) at the Date delinking evidence page? Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. Lightmouse still owns the copyright of the text in the email so he would have to release it before it could be printed on-wiki. Basically, Lightmouse needs to give his approval. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's how copyright works, as I've seen logs (IRC logs, for example) posted for arbitration, and I could have swore e-mails were posted as well. At any rate, this is important evidence that must be available to the parties. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, that's how it works. It's the major reason why emails and IRC discussions can't be published without consent of the individuals taking part. You can ask Lightmouse if you want, I'm going to send it to arbcom directly anyway. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Locke, for the relevant policy, see Wikipedia:E-mailing users#Abuse handling. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

• License update: Licensing vote begins
• News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
• Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Date formatting poll

In answer to your query, I learned about the poll in two ways, first because MosNum, Date Formatting & associated pages were on my watchlist (from the time this issue first came up last autumn), and secondly because there was one of those to-all-editors flags pasted on the top of my watchlist when the poll opened. I knew it closed this week, although I'd misremembered it as closing on the 14th, but I hadn't participated because the sheer size and reading-time is intimidating (even on the blank ballot before the poll opened) and because I'd deliberately pulled away somewhat from Wikipedia a week ago to regain perspective when I found myself on the edge of 3RR edit war over another article. Knowing the poll was about to close very soon (and with Real Life permitting), I searched for it last night, but it actually took some work to find it again. I've certainly not been canvassed by anyone else about this poll. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Cherokee

No worries. "cobin king" might in fact be a "stud", but the information was unreferenced :) -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I'll get looking for a source :-) Thanks for understanding. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

Talk:Homosexual_transsexual#Homosexual_transsexual_.22Used_in_psychology.22.3F If you have time could you please give your input on this request for comment.--Hfarmer (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Celtic F.C.

OK I am learning so thanks for the advice but you really should take a look at the history. There is vandalism all over the place and it should be protected (Pointer1 (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

Linking, protection, arbcom etc

Hello Ryan.

What seems like an age ago, I fully protected:

• Wikipedia:Linking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Build the web (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I did so in response to repeated edit-warring by multiple editors at these and other pages. I did not set an expiry on the protection but instead specified that I thought the protection should remain until the end of the Date Delinking arbcom case. At the time, I never imagined that the case would take so long to reach a resolution; had I known at the time that the case would be unresolved even now, I may not have used page protection or may have protected the page with a different expiry.

I saw today that you edited Wikipedia:Linking and was wondering if you thought that the pages should be unprotected. Since you are more familiar with the background to the whole debate than I, I'll leave this to your discretion and simply say that if you wish to change the protection status or expiry of these pages, you should do so without worrying about overriding my earlier action.

CIreland (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoops

My bad. I was just trying to help; my mistake. Revert away if it is for ArbCom-ers only! — BQZip01 — ^talk 13:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Autoformatting

Ryan, please implement Sapphic's proposal, which amounts to disabling DynamicDates (setting $wgUseDynamicDates = false in LocalSettings.php, not disabling date preferences entirely, as they're used for things other than DynamicDates) and barring the opponents of autoformatting that are named in the ArbCom case from interfering in any future discussions to develop a new software replacement. --169.229.149.174 (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)