Jump to content

User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite/archive22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

Economics mediation

So we going to get this party started? :-) Morphh (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

In case it's unclear, these edits are almost certainly not from one of the involved parties. One can't be sure because "RLV" doesn't use an account to post, but is recognizable as an occasional editor/commenter on economics articles. CRETOG8(t/c) 00:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I've remove the thread because they aren't one of the parties to the dispute. If they want to be added, they can sign in with their main account and come and see me here. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't want an account, but thought I had something to contribute. Is there any process where my comment would remain on the mediation page? (I could always add it to the economics discussion page.) -- RLV 209.217.195.127 (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Given Robert's prior comment at the WikiProject Talk page, we are perhaps best spared his participation in the Mediation. —SlamDiego←T 10:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'm reading the mediation and I can't help but want to jump in with a specific, not covered examples relevant to a few issues. So how can I enter mediation? List myself on main page and then contribute to talk? Or what? CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What happens

I may drop out of the mediation now about the economics project concerning weight issues, because of problems encountered with Lawrence Kwhoo editor here as to bad faith and here [1] soliciting negative comments on the project page... (ANI thread on 'Incorrigibly disruptive editor' An incident report on Skipsievert has been started over at WP:ANI#Incorrigibly disruptive editor. If you have any evidence or personal experiences you would like to relate, please leave a note as appropriate. Thanks, LK (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC).) That was just done today, and I am getting the impression that this stirring of the issues in a negative way bodes ill for mediation... to say the least.

Would it scuttle the mediation if someone (me) drops out? I am finding the editor L.K. and and another Cretog8 to be very aggressive as in bad faith attacking toward myself. Suggestions? skip sievert (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that all parties cut out the squabbling and make there best effort on the mediation. If there's background arguments then the mediation simply isn't going to be successful. 12 people is quite a lot to have take part in a mediation, even if everyone is trying their best to forge a compromise. If people have a battleground mentality then I doubt very much that this will work.
Putting it bluntly, if people wish to go down the user dispute resolution path then they can, but that means that the mediation will be closed right away as it wouldn't be conducted in the right atmosphere. Were you to pull out, the mediation would also be closed as unsuccessful as not all parties would have accepted the mediation. Long story short, it's up to you. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure what to do but am not happy about the continued attacks on the discussion page by putting this kind of canvassing junk up again by someone involved in the Mediation also... J.Q. - It seems pretty over the top bad form to me. I am interested in the issues, the actual ones as to the mediation. I removed the heading/post again as not appropriate, especially now, but probably never. It is connected to a page not connected to the issues at all, and I feel that I am being ganged up on by L.K. J.Q. and Cretog8 in a taunting and baiting attack. skip sievert (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm at work tomorrow and going to bed now, but if that gets reverted, point them to this post by me where I seriously frown upon such blatant canvassing on a project page. Everybody needs to put the handbags down and concentrate on the content issues that are in the mediation. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
“12 people is quite a lot to have take part in a mediation”. Indeed, and when I first said that I would take things to Mediation, I asked people who actually wished to participate, to avoid such problems. (Opposing parties seemed to back-down, so Mediation was put on hold; then one of those same opposing parties suddenly filed, listing those 12 disputants.) —SlamDiego←T 05:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note that what Skip objects to is short note on the Econ talk page that Skip (who is a project member) is currently the subject of an ANI thread. This one note is limited, neutrally worded, nonpartisan and transparent, and hence is the exact opposite of canvassing. Skip has removed my note[2], and I'm not going to edit war with him over it. I would ask Skip to withdraw his description that it is 'canvassing' and an 'attack',[3] but I don't think Skip is capable of admitting mistakes. LK (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not an attack posting the message on the talk page, but it is canvassing in my opinion (no, it's not neutrally worded) - even if it was neutrally worded, it would most probably still be a mild form of canvassing. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 07:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
R. Postlethewaite, now Lawrence Khoo has posted off site blog/commentary here which further is making this worse in my opinion here. I think I need help with all this now as this user seems to be pulling out all the stops in an effort to off site dredge out any odd information they can find which sounds remotely demeaning or negative. This seems like a violation of this, and a blatant one. Skip sievert is an internet avatar name, and as such has been known to be a shared one also. - L.K. is a member of a sign up team here, that have recently piled into to that Ani, in an attempt to castigate me on the Sustainability article. I have tried in that article to edit according to policy and guidelines, with my main concern being the team there is over-sourcing political pov aspects to the articles detriment. That is probably a can of worms but now I feel I am being overall attacked by that editor.
I feel I need help of some kind in dealing with L.K. as to continued attacking during the mediation. The other canvassing thing issue may give you a reference point now as to problematic aspects of cooperating with L.K. - skip sievert (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The post on WT:ECON had earlier been reverted by Skip, however, it was reinstated (not by me). I maintain that the post of a link to an ANI thread about a member of the Wikiproject is entirely reasonable. However, in order to facilitate mediation I have self-reverted the post.
About Skip's other complaint, I don't see why I should self-censor from bringing evidence to ANI on an issue completely separate from the current mediation topic. In my opinion it is relevant to the issue at ANI, and I have seen similar postings on other ANI threads before. LK (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I refer you to this which I believe is very clear in regard to dredging the internet like this for some version of perceived negative information, and as noted the avatar name skip sievert is used by more than one person. For your information a Sievert is a unit of radiation. - skip sievert (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Restarting the mediation

My point was more to reflect on the problems in starting a new request absent skip, rather than suggesting that we continue the old request with skip refusing to participate. I think it is evident from the page discussions that skip intends to remain involved with the formation of guidelines on the econ probject but doesn't wish to be involve in the mediation. What that leaves us with is an unmediatable dispute. SD is attempting to continue the mediation process without skip, but I can't see the fundamental difference between continuing the old RfM sans skip and building an identical RfM sans skip. If the former is proscribed then the latter ought to be. Protonk (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If you're excluding Skip from the request because he doesn't want to participate then mediation can't go ahead - The only way for us to take the case now would be for Skip to say that he's leaving the dispute completely and doesn't plan to return. Anything less that that would be tantamount to a rejection of the mediation terms which always results in us declining the mediation. One of our main rules at the Mediation Committee is that all parties who are involved in the dispute must agree to participate in a mediation request - it's a point that we're not willing to budge on. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 08:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've attempted to grab the bull by the horns. I hope that my doing so does not here make me a bull in a china shop. —SlamDiego←T 10:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Skip's reply unfortunately confirms Protonk's inference. —SlamDiego←T 14:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Tyciol

You're going to need to explain this given that you just popped back on the site after being gone for five days. Nothing I can see in recent history gives any credence to this extremely serious accusation. Thanks for your time. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've emailed the arbitration committee about this. Some of the evidence is on a site which I'd rather not post to WP (it's a pedophilia advocacy site). If you don't mind viewing it (it's basically only a forum so I don't think there'll be any problems with regards to breaking the law) then I'll happily email you the link. It's fairly clear cut once you see it. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, please do email me. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Call me stupid, but I see nothing here] that justifies this blocking. Whatever happens on other websites, if it does not impinge here, should be irrelevant, and if it really matters, should not be kept secret if there is no impact on Wikipedia. In the absence of rational explanation, I can only assume unrelated bias, in the nature of "pitchforks and torches". So please, let's have this up front and not hidden behind some agenda. Rodhullandemu 00:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
No, this is very serious - but again, I'm not willing to post the link on this site. If you want to see my evidence, then please email me and I'll gladly send it to you, but the link I'll be sending is to a pro-pedophilia site. I'll happily give it to anyone upon request. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, if you're that bothered you can hav it here. Here is the url which shows that Tyciol is a self admitted pedophile. He's made edits to pedophilia related articles here, hence the block. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm...I definitely don't condone pedophilia at all, but I don't think we should be blocking people for activity over which Wikipedia/Wikimedia has no control. As long as the edits to WIkipedia are within the policies and guidelines here, I don't care who edits the site, and neither do our policies and guidelines. I think you have overstepped your authority here, Ryan. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
So you're happy for a self confessed pedophile to be editing child sexual abuse and child pornography articles? There's also the small issue of the fact that he's editing with kids here. Forgive me for taking the morale high ground here, but that strikes me as utterly wrong. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
As long as he is abiding by the policies and guidelines here, I don't see how his personal life has anything to do with it. As for editing with kids (which is fairly difficult to determine as people generally don't indicate their ages here, and anyone under 18 who does has that information removed fairly quickly), unless he can be shown to be doing something illegal or inappropriate, I don't see it as an issue. We don't convict people for what they might do unless they've shown they can't be trusted by flouting the policies and guidelines. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)} I read it. However, whatever a username (is there a Checkuser for this?) may say elsewhere, I don't see anything *here* that confirms this. Perhaps I've missed it, but if you would like to point out diffs for pedophile advocacy "on wikipedia", please email me, or, preferably put them up front. It's within my legal experience that innocent people are sometimes caught in law enforcement operations due to their credit card details being used, and have very great difficulty proving their innocence due to the circumstantial evidence. However, prima facie, in this case, you may have a point; but unless and until User:Tyciol is shown to be using Wikipedia for pedophile advocacy, we should tread very carefully indeed; he/she is a person, and has rights. Those rights should not be taken away arbitrarily, and certainly not without defensible evidence. So far, it's weak, in my opinion. Rodhullandemu 00:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
It's clear they're the same person. Same username for starters, and primary editing area is anime related articles; as he says in the email I linked to above; "I'm not faulting you for it though, temptation can be quite strong at times. I'm more fortunate in that I'm such an anime geek I probably find them (or cosplayers) more attractive than real people." which clearly shows his interest in Anime. There's no chance they aren't the same person. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It's Tyciol's hotmail account - for whatever that's worth (he has his email accounts on his userpage). I havta say, I've been following his edits since the great redirect kerfuffle, and I haven't noticed anything dubious. He's a member of the defunct Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch according to one of the eleventy zillion userboxes also on his page, but I haven't seen him make any edits related to them, although perhaps you have. Also, those messages are from 2006!! Making it even less relevant. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC) OK, I've found some edits on their talk page from much earlier this year, but nothing of an advocative nature. In fact, this [4] is significant as showing an intent to keep in with Wikipedia policy. I have kids of my own and I don't like paedophiles, but I don't care for lynchings either.Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that it's fair to say that Ryan has contacted Arbcom about his actions and asked them to examine the issue further. I would suggest contacting Arbcom directly, either on WT:ARB or by email at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org should you have any remaining concerns, as it is now a matter for them to conclude. Many thanks, Gazimoff 09:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll leave it with them. I have also struck the last line of my post. Reading it now, it appears rather too pointy - I didn't mean to say that Ryan personally was lynching anyone. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that ArbCom aren't the ones who should be involved here unless this is directly connected to a specific case against Tyciol. As far as I know, there isn't one, and Ryan hasn't referenced one. This is clearly an abuse of authority here, and Ryan is trying to hide behind "Well, I sent the info to ArbCom," as if that somehow condones what he has done. His blocking of Tyciol was not policy-based at all. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I've blocked other people for very similar reasons and it's never been an issue before. If I find a user to be a self identified pedophile then they get blocked, whether they identify here or on a different site. In fact, there is a precedent for this whereby Fred Bauder (who was a member of the Arbitration Committee at the time and I'm sure was making the blocks on behald of the committee) blocked a number of users (Zanthalon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Silent War (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), ) simply because they were self identified pedophiles. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
You aren't paying attention to what I'm writing: there is no policy which supports this block. Just because someone hasn't called you on it before (perhaps no one noticed it before) doesn't mean you can keep blocking people outside of policy. Passing the buck to ArbCom doesn't give you the right to keep doing it, either. If you block someone, you need to give specific policy reasons which back up your block if someone asks you about it. Referring them to ArbCom instead of providing the reason doesn't remove your responsibility for your actions. So far, you haven't provided any policy which supports your block of Tyciol. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Quite frankly Nihonjoe, I'm appalled at such a flippant attitude you're displaying toward pedophiles editing here. I've explained my reasons for the blocked (notably, he has edited child abuse/pornography articles and also the fact that he is sharing the online space with children). I'm not sure what else you want me to say. As far as I'm concerned, it was a great block. If you feel differently, then please contact the Arbitration Committee (as I'm sure you're aware, all request for block reviews which are done for child abuse/pedophilia advocacy should be directed to the arbitration committee by email (arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org)). Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 11:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
So editing an article about which you may have an opinion is now a blockable offense? Since when? As Elen of the Roads has mentioned, there don't seem to be any instances of pro-pedophile activity on Wikipedia by Tyciol at all. In fact, it seems Tyciol goes out of his way to be neutral on this topic. Again, please show me policy which supports this block. If you think that a request to be shown the policy which supports your actions is flippant, then I don't know what to say. You say you have explained your reasons, but you have repeatedly ignored my request to provide policy backing up your action. If you can't do so, then Tyciol will be unblocked until and unless he can be shown to have blatantly broken policy on Wikipedia (since we have no control over what someone may or may not do somewhere else). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think this has come up before at a high level, to do with editing paedophilia/child sex articles, with the argument being that such articles for balance need to include some aspect of the pro-p POV. In many ways, I am less bothered by a paedophile editing child sex articles that I would be with them editing manga/anime articles, where the possibility exists of identifying targets. That however is theoretical - there's no evidence of it happening here AFAIK, and I am concerned that there is probably a widespread perception that upon such slender evidence someone has "you are a paedophile" plastered all over their account in large (un)friendly letters.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I found what I was thinking of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war specifically Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war/Proposed_decision#Wikipedia_is_open_to_all. During the events leading up to the RfAR, Jimbo Wales blocked someone that he suspected was a paedophile and stated that pedophiles were not allowed to edit Wikipedia. ArbCom overturned this (or rather found that he didn't have the right to make the statement - it was from some other event involving a Jimbo 'pronuncement from on high' that he didn't have the right to make, that I came across this case) and endorsed the rather guarded statement that It is not an accepted practice to ban users from editing Wikipedia unless they are actively disrupting, endangering, or otherwise harming the project. Such bannings usually require either broad community consensus, an action from the Arbitration Committee, or an action from Jimbo Wales. In addition, "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics." Which while certainly not a ringing endorsement of paedophilia (which I would neither expect nor want) does suggest that the current action was somewhat premature. There needs to be some actual evidence of harm.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
That case had absolutely nothing to do with Jimbo blocking a suspected pedophile. It all centred around a userbox which someone created stating "this user is a pedophile". There was a wheel war about the deletion of the userbox, people did get blocked, but for disruption at the deletion discussion and for wheel warring. Don't attempt to use the Wikimedia Foundation's discrimination policy here - are you trying to suggest I'm being discriminatory about pedophiles? If so, good - I see nothing wrong with that in the slightest. If you don't agree then that's slightly worrying. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 11:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Ryan, that is extremely disingenuous. Although the kerfuffle was about wheel warring, the incident revealed that an admin felt it was OK to block paedophiles on sight, and that the same admin intended to make a change to the blocking policy in order to allow this (when pointed out that it wasn't contained in the current at the time policy). Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war/Workshop#Carbonite.2C_et_al_advocated_banning_pedophiles. The very cautious statement of the arbitrators in my previous post was intended to highlight that this was not supported. You'll notice that the block policy never changed - it still does not support banning paedophiles on sight. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
That's not correct - the main case was based around the wheel warring over the template. Joeyramoney was blocked indefinitely, until he clarified that he only added the template as a joke and he wasn't in fact a pedophile. Zanthalon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Silent War (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Jim Burton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who all had the userbox on their userpage before the wheel war began are all now currently blocked because they identified as pedophiles. Fred Bauder made those blocks whilst he was a sitting arbitrator. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I think you're missing a couple of things here. Two of those accounts had been inactive for 6mths in one case and a year in the other before the blocks, so there is a profound sense of stable doors closing after horses had legged it. Also both had been active on Wikipedia in what could be seen as paedophile advocacy, so it is far from clear that the block was not de facto for that offence. In the case of Jim Burton, the block was specified as for paedophile advocacy. This category is something I'd be quite happy to see blocks about, but Tyciol was very careful never to identify on Wikipedia that he was a paedophile, nor to undertake any form of advocacy - his edits are all strictly neutral and conform to all policies. Be that as it may, I will wait to see the response from the Arbs, as nothing more is to be gained by discussion here I think. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
No, there wasn't anything strange going on. Fred (presumably after discussion with other arbitrators) decided that their further participation on the project after identifying as pedophiles was not welcome. From what I recall, one of the reasons other than the ones mentioned above (editing with children, POV potential) was that it has the potential to be a serious PR nightmare for Wikipedia - if the press cottoned on to the fact that we allowed people who self identified as pedophiles to edit our encyclopedia we'd get hit hard. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
So show me where this is referenced. Where the consensus was established. Even then, these were all people who self identified on Wikipedia as paedophiles. What about User:Freakofnurture who is or was an admin? Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, assuming you are correct and there is a policy, we ought to have a guideline on it. Assuming your good faith, the way you have acted has had the effect of completely trashing the editor's reputation. It would be difficult to restore even if the block was overturned and the entries oversighted. Which makes it problematical if, as Rodhullandemu points out, in some future case someone has got caught up in an investigation because their credit card has been cloned (as has happened IRL), or where someone has been investigated and exonerated (say a teacher faced with a false accusation, which also happens IRL) and the blocking admin only has half the story. This is my main concern - there should be guidelines about how things are communicated, how any blocks are handled etc, which protect both the project and an innocent accused. Also, I can see no reason why Wikipedia should not state clearly that paedophiles are the one exception to its 'anyone can edit' principal. They went all through this with LiveJournal a couple of years back, and that was all due to not spelling things out clearly, not having policy in place to point to. I'm going to make a suggestion at AN that a one line addition be made to the block policy, and a short guideline on handling this area be written. I'm happy to actually start the writing process - I had a limited hand in writing some of the policies for LiveJournal, and I have worked in the 'administrative justice' field for some time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, could you please clarify whether you blocked the account on the basis of the editor's wiki-editing (cf. block log entry: "pro-paedophilia activism"), their off-wiki actions, or their allegedly being a paedophile? Which of these do you believe is sufficient for an indefinite block?  Skomorokh, barbarian  18:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It's because he's a well renowned, self admitted pedophile. In fact, he's been banned from quite a few other sites for the way he talks about his pedophilia (including LiveJournal for creating the "childlove community"). Clearly I believe it is sufficient for an indefinite block. There is a website which details all of his accounts and actions on other websites along with links to some of the things he's said about sex with children - it's messed up. Unfortunately, it also details his real name and address so I've sent it directly to ArbCom as I can't post it here. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to understand where you are coming from, because being "a well renowned, self admitted pedophile" is absolutely not an acceptable rationale for blocking an editor. I don't want to get into the specifics of the case here, but do you have evidence to your satisfaction that the editor was intentionally disruptive of the encyclopaedia or damaging to its contributors, or that they planned to be so?  Skomorokh, barbarian  19:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Just showing my support of Ellen and Barbarian's arguments. Forgive me if I lack their diplomatic ability, but I don't think people should be blocked because someone "took" their version of "the moral high ground" and thought they were "messed up". These are not reasons to block. We have policies so that we don't need to rely on such judgments. Equazcion (talk) 19:51, 28 Oct 2009 (UTC)
None of you guys know the full facts of the case, which is why I've sent all the information I have for review by the arbitration committee. It's not possible for me to give the full facts without outing Tyciol (real name and location). This isn't just one misplaced comment on a single internet forum - it's a widespread campaign by Tyciol on a large number of websites promoting his sexual views toward children (leading to a number of bans from various forums). Clearly I'm not happy that this guy is able to interact with children here. I stand by my block 100%. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to be clear, my concern is that it's a judgement call for one person, and the consequences for the editor is catastrophic if that person is wrong. You cant just overturn the block, and you can't oversight people's memories. There should be a process that makes it clear to the rest that the evidence has been reviewed and a decision taken. And because Wikipedia (unlike LJ now) doesn't have policies it can point to, the potential for collateral damage to the blocking admin is high also. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't you have first contacted ArbCom, waited for a response, and then made the block? --Conti|✉ 20:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Not really - It wasn't as if I was unsure about the block. I contacted the arbitration committee because they are the only people who could look at all the evidence to review the block. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
That's what I want the guideline for. I think it's being done the wrong way round. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


Ryan, I am not trying to lure the specifics of the case out of you, I am trying to give you a fair hearing before deciding whether or not to reverse what appears to be a deeply problematic action. I'll ask again: are you entirely confident that this editor disrupted or intended to disrupt Wikipedia or harm its contributors?  Skomorokh, barbarian  20:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I am extremely confident that his mere presence on the project is highly detrimental. Given his abuse of other internet forums/sites with respect to his pedophilia views, I believe that his participation on Wikipedia is extremely concerning. The mere fact that we are allowing a (happily) self admitted pedophile is a PR nightmare for the project, coupled with the fact he has the ability to use the Wikimedia interface to interact privately with our child editors. I would suggest you contact the Arbitration Committee by email (as FloNight has already instructed everybody to do [5]) directly if you have any further concerns about the block. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I understand that you think their participation here is detrimental, and that you're concerned about public relations, but neither of these alone are any grounds for indefinitely blocking an editor. I take it by not answering the twice-posed question you have no evidence of the editor being intentionally disruptive or harming contributors; if I am wrong correct me. I will be in contact with ArbCom and subsequently review the tenability of the block. Sincerely,  Skomorokh, barbarian 
Its fair to say there isn't a specific policy that provides for blocking pro-pedophilia advocates, even when they advocate on-wiki. Obviously, then, there is even less specific policy basis for blocking people with no discernible advocacy on-wiki. On the other hand, there is a long series of precedents - blocks by arbitrators, referring questions to ArbCom, specifically against editors who have acknowledged and/or promoted pedophilia. You know this, Skomorokh, as we've discussed it before. I would take great care before undoing the block; surely the entire facts should be reviewed by the arbitration committee first. If they uphold the block, and you continue to object to its basis, then a community discussion should also come before any unblock. Nathan T 22:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
If there could be open community discussion about this I don't think it would be as much of a problem. We appear to have been officially gagged from doing so, though. Equazcion (talk) 22:18, 28 Oct 2009 (UTC)
They had two rounds of on the fly activity on LJ. Then they got some policies. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Nathan, we can agree that this actions is made on the basis of precedent rather than policy, but you fail to address that bans of this sort are expressly forbidden by policy. I am not sure whether persecuting editors because of their beliefs is less morally abhorrent than discriminating against editors based on their sexual orientation, but neither have any place on our project. I have tried to ascertain from Ryan whether or not the editor had disrupted the project or intended to as a consequence of their nature or beliefs, but it seems this is not the case. I am in discussion with the Committee, and the propriety of the action will be reviewed shortly; I would not encourage on-wiki discussion of the specifics of the case nor further imposition on Ryan's talkpage.  Skomorokh, barbarian  22:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, Ryan Postlethwaite, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 23:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, three years today - can't believe how quickly it's gone! Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations, Ryan! It is amazing how long it's being, hasn't it? I thought the same thing on my recent third anniversary. At any rate, I'm glad you're still here, and again, congratulations. Best. Acalamari 23:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Six weeks

It has been about six weeks since I raised concerns about a mediator, and about four weeks since you promised a reply "within the next 3 days". Can you provide a complete, on-wiki report, detailing the positions of all parties involved, within the next 24 hours? Gimmetrow 10:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, someone had said they would take this over but I guess not. We looked into the complaint against Sunray and found him not to be at fault at all. We believe at no point he stepped out of line as a mediator and when he felt like he had started to get too personally involved, he removed himself as a mediator. We are not in a position to start reviewing the the conduct of the parties so we won't be providing a report detailing the positions of all parties - it's completely out of our remit and would go against the privileged nature of mediation. Regards, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
That is an unacceptable response. Given the time and delay you have caused, you should provide detailed explanation of the position of everyone who discussed this off-wiki, with a detailed description of all evidence used, since you at no point contacted me for further information. Your prompt reply is requested. Gimmetrow 15:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
It's an entirely appropriate response Gimmetrow, especially considering you failed to give a single diff to back up your allegations - When asked a question here by KillerChihuahua when she was wanting more information about your complaint, you failed to acknowledge the question at all. Myself, Xavexgoem and KillerChihuahua looked into the complaint and we went through the mediation and a number of discussions after the mediation had concluded (in which Sunray participated as a non-mediator) and found not a single problem with any of his mediating skills, nor bias as you suggested. We also found no evidence that he had been colluding off-wiki as you mentioned (which you should know is a very serious accusation and should have been backed up with evidence before even thinking of bringing it on-wiki). If you wish to discuss what your options now about where you can request further review then that's something we can discuss, however the initial complaint that you made has been fully reviewed and I've quite frankly got nothing else to say. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The diff you present from KC contains no request for further information. Did you ask Sunray for any response? In any event, even assuming for the sake of argument that Sunray participated post-mediation as a non-mediator, does it not give you even the slightest pause to find a mediator immediately entering a dispute post-mediation on one side? That should be prima facie an indication of bias. Gimmetrow 17:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I find your failure to respond rather troubling. Do you consider this conduct appropriate dispute resolution for the chair of medcom? Gimmetrow 14:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what else you want me to say. We've investigated this internally and found nothing unbecoming in Sunray's conduct - If you wish to discuss where you can seek review, then let's discuss it - as far as the complaint is concerned, we've looked at it and disagreed and in our eyes the matter is closed. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Very well. Where does the chair of the mediation committee, who has already assumed jurisdiction over the arbitration committee, suggest going for review of alleged "findings" by that chair that are not presented on-wiki? Gimmetrow 16:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, what you could do is start an RfC if you believe that Sunray's conduct was that problematic. Obviously you'll need another person to certify who has attempted to solve the dispute with him. Secondly, if you believe Sunray's performance outside the mediation was that problematic (and I mean after the mediation had concluded) then you could refer the case to the Arbitration Committee. They're really your only two options and I'm not sure how successful they would be. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 11:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

Trout

ANI is drama prone enough without additional drama bombs. Please don't post block reviews when the user has not requested unblock, especially with short blocks <=24 hours. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 03:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody should ever be trouted for seeking wider scrutiny on a block. That is exactly what the administrative policy says to do if you disagree with a block. Contentious issues need more discussion not less. Chillum 03:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
But if the user is not interested in being unblocked, the issue is moot. Why post moot issues at ANI? It's just a waste of editor time. The broader issue should be discussed at WT:NPA, as you suggested. Jehochman Talk 03:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
We both know someone was very close to acting unilaterally, so it was not really moot was it? I agree 100% that most of the heat in the discussion is not about the editor in question and that it is about people's opinion on policy, let us build on this common ground. Chillum 03:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The drama bomb was the block itself. Is was highly disruptive and uncivil considering the blocked editor had just been personally attacked by an admin. What a mess GeorgeWilliamHerbert has managed to create. Totally unnecessary and grossly unhelpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't respond to such condescending gibberish, but that is quite frankly ridiculous Jehochman. What I did was 100% correct so please don't be alarmed to hear that I won't be taking your advice. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
If a user has not requested unblock, why would you post on their behalf? That's a question, not a rhetorical statement. Please answer. Jehochman Talk 13:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Next step on Vaccine controversy mediation?

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Vaccine controversy was accepted a week ago, but nothing has happened since. What's the next step? I ask because editors are now untagging and retagging and reuntagging Vaccine controversy based on a controversy over whether there's a controversy. Eubulides (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Please ignore the previous comment, as Sunray has taken the case. Eubulides (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Apologies for not posting here - I was busy finding a mediator and I see Sunray offered his services. Best of luck with the mediation. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

An explanation

Hi Ryan, I'm just leaving you this message to explain the situation with FT2/Jehochman. When they both approached me (amongst others), because they both had positive interactions with me, I was hoping to avoid this kind of situation, so I told them I was willing to do a private mediation with them under the condition that the details of the mediation would be under SIMILAR terms to a formal MEDCOM case. We were hoping that doing it privately via email, we could get to the core of the situation between the two parties without interruption.

Privilege may not apply, but common courtesy certainly does. I do have impressions from the work I did, but I am going to stick to what was agreed. SirFozzie (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Foz - common sense would suggest the mediation should stay private if those were the terms agreed to before the start of the mediation. However, there's no policy on here which would make it a requirement. The mediation occurred off-wiki from what I can gather, so that will at least stop parties posting things from the mediation on-wiki (private communications and all that), but I can't guarantee that parties won't submit these private communications to the Arbitration Committee by email. If they did, then it would be up to the Arbtration Committee to decide whether they would be obliged to do so given the previous understanding between the parties. Hope that explains my thoughts better, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Zeno's Paradoxes mediation

hi Ryan,

Well done, for stepping into the midst of this issue. I was beginning to wonder if anyone was going too.

You've got your work cut out for you, with both sides being quite forthright in their opinions.

I hope you appreciate that this issue (Zeno's Paradoxes) has perplexed scientists and philosophers for thousands of years.

You'll need to be alert to your own biases and world-views, and how they may filter your guidance, questions and judgements.

My approach is to question the assumptions upon which the various statements on the main article page rely. This is not to present "original research" but merely to reveal the emperor has no clothes.

Or, in the parlance of one of my favourite authors, to shout "oh, it's a space-ship"* and watch the mayhem unfold.

This should be interesting.

Cheers, Steaphen

  • referring to the scene in Douglas Adams' Hitch-hikers Guide to the Universe, when Arthur Dent innocently reveals that there's a thumping big space-ship in the middle of the cricket pitch, around which the players were playing, while feigning ignorance of the ship. A first class SEP.
Hi Ryan,
Just read the "fine print" regarding the status of this mediation. I understand it's been accepted, but not assigned? No worries. Cheers, Steaphen (talk) 10:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Steaphen (talk) 05:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to thank you for your participation in my RfB. While we obviously had our differences of opinion on the topic you brought up, I appreciated your comments near the end of the bureaucrat chat. I hope that we can work together amiably in the future. If you ever need anything, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you again for participating. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your closing words to Joe.

This RfB was important to me, in terms of how it was handled by WP. On balance, I think it ended well, so I am happy.--SPhilbrickT 16:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

Another Izmir lee sock

Hi Ryan,

Do you remember the banned User:Izmir lee case? I have a strong suspicion that User:Turkish Flame is his latest sock. The account was created on August 8 2008, only a few days after his latest sock User:OlympiADdict was blocked (August 4 2008). The Turkish Flame account then fixes up a rather fancy userpage as a first order of business, showing uncanny familiarity with wikipedia syntax and userpages. Izmir lee and his User:Aegean Boy sock also liked fancy userpages. But most revealing of all is the seemingly bot-like editing pattern on diplomacy related articles as here [6] and here [7] (compare to Izmir lee [8] [9] [10] [11]). Also not that they have same editing interests, namely sports and pop culture (recent sporting events [12] [13], Eurovision [14] [15], updating Turkish BLP articles [16] [17], adding Turkey to European geography lists [18] [19] [20] [21]). Based on the contribs logs alone, this screams WP:DUCK and then some. I'm pretty sure a checkuser will show that it is a sock. Best, --Athenean (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for bringing this to my attention - after going through their contributions, it's clear that it's the same person behind the accounts so I've blocked Turkish Flame (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sock of Izmir lee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Cheers, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

File:18th Birthday.jpg Hey, Ryan Postlethwaite. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!-- MisterWiki talk contribs 02:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy birthday, Ryan! Hope you had a good day. Best. Acalamari 02:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, happy birthday mate! Even if you blocked me ;) --FA
IL!
Talk 21:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

Hello!

I have removed your mobile number on your user page for security reasons. Hope you didn't mind :) --FA

IL!

Talk 03:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Concern about the behaviour of Cremepuff222

There's been a recent AN/I thread created, where some bizarre behaviour by User:Cremepuff222 has come to light. There is some concern that the account may have been compromised. I noticed that you nominated Cremepuff for adminship, so I'm assuming you might have an idea of what is typical behaviour for them. If you could review the thread in question and lend us your insight, it would be greatly appreciated. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It was just brought to my attention that you may not have interacted with this editor for some time, and may not have anything to add. If that is the case, then sorry for bugging you. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I've already offered my opinion on the AN/I - as it happens, I know him quite well so hopefully I've been of some limited use. I've also emailed ArbCom. Thanks for contacting me. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
...and I just saw your post on AN/I. Thanks for your input. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Trout or barnstar?

I'm not sure whether to give you a barnstar of good humor or slap you with a trout. How about I slap you with a Trout Of Good Humor? Well, I guess the fact that you had to find that site is punishment enough :). Your eyes and ears must still feel the pain. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, I just couldn't resist. I actually chuckled to myself when I was posting it - Clearly I'm having a very dull Thursday so needed something to brighten it up a bit! Hopefully it didn't disrupt too many peoples work places! Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Intended

Hi. Did you mean to block this one forever and ever? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for spotting that! I set it for a week, but then selected "abusing multiple accounts" for the reason, which automatically sets the block length to infinite - As you can tell, I'm out of practice! Cheers, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I glanced when blocking the followup meat/sock. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Mediation question

Hi - I"m involved in a dispute about the content of an article. Without going into details lets say it has become rather acrimonious. I filed a request for information informal mediation about a week ago with no response so far. At least one of the other editors involved is agitating to proceed with formal mediation. I've asked at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal if they might be able to give any indication of when someone might show up. Can you recommend what a reasonable amount of time might be to wait for an informal mediator before proceeding with a formal mediation request? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. A cabalist had closed the informal case, recommending medcom. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Ryan - Several emails sent to you by myself and others recently have not received a reply from you. We sent the info to you by your request. Please reply by email. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

InkHeart

Hello. It appears that User:InkHeart is using Special:Contributions/99.253.86.157 as yet another sockpuppet. Thanks. Ωphois 05:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours.


In honour of the season, I hope you will enjoy a little musical token. Your choice: traditional or cheeky.


Best, Risker (talk) 04:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

And now, for FV's traditional last-minute nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Here’s wishing you a happy end to the holiday season and a wonderful 2010.
Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Akmal Shaikh...

Apologies for my premature edit on Akmal Shaikh's death. It was made in good faith. As soon as I read the news that Akmal's 11th hour appeal for clemency was rejected, I knew he was going to die. As you probably already know, the Chinese are rather punctual about these kinds of things. I therefore updated the Akmal article about 10 minutes past his scheduled execution time, based on the (correct) assumption that he was already dead, and indeed he was. MythNReality (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

Archived note

Hi Ryan -- it looks like the bot archived this note [22] before you saw it, probably due to the holidays. Would you please take a look? Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

GoRight & Abd again

Hello. Have you seen this contribution by GoRight Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Motion_to_add_Abd_as_a_party_to_this_case? Happy New Year. Mathsci (talk) 08:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And also [23] which is directly related. Dougweller (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Cheers guys for pointing me in the right direction - hopefully all should be sorted now. Happy new year to the both of you. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Also [24] which has not been addressed William M. Connolley (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Noticed this, so perhaps, Ryan, you'd be interested in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley. Because of WMC's dedicated effort, exemplified above, to keep the pot stirred, I did decide to go ahead and ask ArbComm for clarification. I hope that simplifies things. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Ping William M. Connolley (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair William, when you mention someone by name, it's only fair that they have a right to respond - you inherently make Abd part of the dispute meaning he's free to comment. I think the best thing to do for now is to ignore Abd (sorry Abd, but that's really how I feel) - if he wishes to go off on his long rants then let him do so without responding. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
This is about implementing arbcomm sanctions. You're refusing to; I'm not surprised; it always goes thus William M. Connolley (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Piotrus's user page

Hi, Ryan. I commented on his talk page and have offered to maintain his user page while he's, uh, not doing so. The positioned stuff you cut has been restored and it seems to me that you were encountering an issue at lower screen resolutions that resulted in some of the UI being obscured. I don't see that as much of a big deal as there are many ways to drive the UI, it's *his* page, and it is not happening for most users. So, I'd like to tidy his page up for him and he's given me and others free-reign. Please let me know what you'd like to see here. Thanks, Jack Merridew 19:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

By all means edit his userpage, but please keep the UI clear. I'm on a factory setting mac with firefox so I presume others have the problem as well. I'll keep checking back, but I'll assume you'll keep the UI clear. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I saw the obscuring issue and have just taken a first stab at fixing it. It did not occur on higher resolutions; you just outted yourself as on a 13" model ;) I'm mostly driving a Mac these days and only use the non-Firefox browsers for testing. Piotrus's page is rather full of 'stuff' and I initially focused on clearing the nits. I'm going to leave him a note and will be looking at the other fixed message that was on his talk page and behind the other on his user page. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Best Wishes for 2010, FloNight♥♥♥♥ 11:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, nice pic. Wonder who uploaded that one. JohnWBarber (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The old year as an old Roué and the new year as his protegée. That's rather wonderful. Proof of life before Disney! --TS 01:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate change

I forked the discussion to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change as I think it will run for a while. I agree with your proposal. I have suggested that we try it for a while and then review to see if arbitration is required. A group of neutral admins or long-standing editors can do the review and decide who is and is not a party, if the need arises. Your thoughts on that? Guy (Help!) 14:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely Guy. I think it's definitely worth a shot - it's clear the second wording has consensus and I think a month trial, with a review at the end of it (the review can simply be done on AN with neutral administrators weighing in). I'll write it up on AN to formalise things and see what others think. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that your efforts in putting forward this proposal are very much appreciated. I'm sure it will make a big (positive!) difference to this topic area. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I should add that I think you should define the scope as "articles relating to climate change and global warming, broadly defined", as it seems from the comments that there may be wriggle room if you just confine it to climate change (apparently the two topics are parallel, not subsidiary). -- ChrisO (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Climate change probation

While I appreciate your efforts with regard to the controversial global warming pages, given the size of the active community on the global warming articles and the worldwide holiday just past, I believe it is premature to says your proposal has the support of the community. On the contrary, I saw objections raised by Sphilbrick, A Quest for Knwoledge, and others that do not appear to have been addressed in the subsequent discussion. I myself only learned of your proposal minutes before you declared it enacted, and was drafting my concerns. Meanwhile there are more than 90 editors with 10+ edits since December 1 in, for example, the Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident page. How many of them weighed in on your proposal? There is definitely an ongoing content debate with regard to what many of the global warming articles should contain, and I can not help but notice that support for your proposal comes conspicuously and vocally from one side of that debate. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, when you have a moment. Thanks! --DGaw (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC) (Refactored into own section to allow direct referenced. --DGaw (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Objection

I object to you being the one to close any discussion regarding your own proposal. I also object to your attempting to impose probation on CC articles with out adequate community discussion (i.e. less that 48 hours and over a holiday and without any suitable advertisement that such a discussion was on-going). I hereby request that you reverse any attempts to implement these sanctions until such time as these concerns can be properly addressed. I have already raised this same objection here. --GoRight (talk) 07:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There was a lot of discussion on the matter and what was clear coming out of it was that basically everybody who was neutral and had no previous involvement in the dispute was extremely supportive. The (few) objections we did have came from people who were directly involved in the dispute which clearly means their views are given a lot less weight - at the end of the day, these are the kind of people who will end up sanctioned by the probation. I have therefore read your objection, but find it to be completely unwarranted. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't do barnstars

So have a nice bit of Kendal Mint Cake. You got us to the summit, so I reckon we'll all need some energy to get us back down into the valleys of normal editing on a controversial issue. Well done. Enjoy the view. --TS 01:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's all downhill from here. Where's that big dog with my brandy? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Seconded. I am sure you did not actually see this through as a personal favor to me, but if you would like my help with anything please do not hesitate to ask. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks guys - I think it was clear that we needed some form of probation on the article, but I figured it would be best to get to that point without the need for months of mud slinging at arbitration - that rarely solves things. Things seem to be working well now, hopefully they will continue to do so over the next month. Thanks for the Mint Cake Tony - one of my favourites! ;-) Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't do the barnstar thing either, but if I did you'd get the shiniest one. Someday a clever person will figure out how to send a pint through the interweb. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Request Notification

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Climate Change Probation and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, --GoRight (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Congrats, Ryan, you must be doing something right. ++Lar: t/c 16:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Disabling DynamicDates

Ryan,

Greetings and Happy New Year! Now that the work on delinking full-linked dates is complete, would you be the right person to ask to actually go ahead with switching off DynamicDates? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I did try on bugzilla and I got the impression they were going to flick the switch at some point. I'll have a look later tonight and maybe offer a reply on the bug. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Requesting self-rv

Ryan, your last sentence here[25] seems unwise. Certain people are looking for any excuse to accuse admins and others of partiality, so best to leave this off. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, you make a valid point - I wasn't aiming it at anyone in particular, it was merely a general statement that only involved people seem to be arguing against it. Every neutral person seems for it. That said, I respect what you're saying so I've removed it. Thanks for the note, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Mass assumption

You reported, I blocked, they appealed - appeal was reverted for NPA considerations. I have undone the revert, since it does constitute their block appeal, but in doing so made an assumption on your part. I trust that you are down (or whatever you youngsters are saying these days) with my actions? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got to say, it made me chuckle some what after just reading it! I'm fine with the revert - let's see how far the unblock request gets him! (and thanks for the block by the way, I'd probably have blocked myself earlier on had I not just reverted him). Happy new year by the way. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: User:JehnCD

Re your message: That's fine. I was going to reset it myself, but I was busy cleaning up the mess. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Can i get some advice please

Hi i`m not to sure if this is the right thing to do but i have noticed what appears to be a nasty confrontaion on the vaclav klaus page, users Tbsdy and Nothughthomas seem to be having issues, with user Nothughthomas seeming to think that tbsdy is harrasing her. Any thoughts on how to proceed in this? --mark nutley (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion on this?

[26]. --GoRight (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Psb777 & Climategate

Since your posting at 17:19 where you determine you will not change your decision I have posted several comments as to why the charge against me is false. Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if you had a chance to read my statement. From the time the request from Viriditus was placed to you deciding on a sanction was 21 minutes. I had no chance to prepare a statement before your determination. The charge is false (of course, they all say that) but you should at least appear to listen to both sides, no? Paul Beardsell (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If I could un-involve myself, I really would. However, as one of the editors of the paragraph which the reverts of was the cause of your sanction against Psb777, I feel somewhat compelled to let you know that you were acting on less-than-correct information. Please see my comment here. This is exactly what I was afraid of would happen with the new sanctions. Troed (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


Class act

You deleted our article on high school student Jason Witt, classifying it as an "attack". I believe you have no basis in making this accusation and I demand that our article be put back up immediately. We only wanted to keep Jason's birthday present up at least until he could see it (which he didn't) and he could know how much he means to us.

Thank you for ruining Jason's birthday. Love, us

To quote the book, Grendel: "Poor Grendel's had an accident. So may you all." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovegrendel (talk • contribs) 00:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

Could you please provide your thoughts on ...

this? As the author of the current sanctions have you given any thought towards how they might be improved and evolved over time? I assume that they are going to be maleable enough to address additional concerns? --GoRight (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

probation rules

Might i ask if making two reverts in less than 24 hours is a breach of the current probation on Rajendra_K._Pachauri ? Thank you --mark nutley (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean [27] and [28]? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Socks?

There is some danger of a revert war at MWP. What looks like socks are now joining in [29] William M. Connolley (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello Ryan. I have left a message at User talk:Andrevan#Mediation help to see if he can help in mediation of the dispute (see link). It looks like the user is on a wikibreak (according to his userpage). Would you be able to help in the issue? Thanks and regards. Rehman(+) 12:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks more like its solved now. Thanks anyway. Regards. Rehman(+) 02:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The latest Izmir lee sock

User:Unique85 [30]. Without a doubt. --Athenean (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Dynamic dates

Hi Ryan, I'm just following up on my request last week to disable Dynamic Dates. Has there been any progress made? If not, could you please point me in the right direction so I can follow up directly with the relevant person(s)? Thanks. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Help appreciated

With Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement if you have a little time, there is a backlog. --BozMo talk 00:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Flo;'s RFA

You are speaking bullshit. At no point has anyone asked people to try and merge to two accounts edits into a total yet only let voters review one. I'm disapointed you're creating the impression this is otherwise. And the irony is you'd support strongly if you knew better. I'm going on a break now. BTW - appreciate the email the other day - I've fixed my fuck up - so thanks for that. Pedro :  Chat  20:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Check your templates :)

At least the one on Durova's page is full of red links SirFozzie (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Foz - hopefully it's sorted now - it's been a while since I opened one! ;-) Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Since you've gone active on this one, might I trouble you to move your name from the inactive list to active at WP:AC/C? -MBK004 05:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi Ryan, any chance you can get back to me on my e-mail? Cheers! John Smith's (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Save the Children Banner

Hi Ryan, would you mind undeleting File:SaveTheChildrenHaitiBanner 468x60.gif?

It is part of a proposal being discussed at the Village Pump and is used with the copy-right holders permission (albeit non-explicit) and almost certainly passes the fair use test too.

Let me know if this is a problem.

Thanks --Payo (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

CHUuser

I am guessing the lack of transclusions of {{CHUuser}} due to it being substituted? Or is not being used at all? Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:PEDMEN

Hi Ryan,

There is an issue that needs the attention of the topic mentors [31]. Please take a look. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey young 'un!

Ryan, take a look at this (but don't try eating or drinking anything at the same time or you'll need a new keyboard/monitor) - the second paragraph is priceless... User talk:2over0#GoRight's block. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear me - I left him a warning anyway because that simply wasn't acceptable - if he repeats it, I'll go and find an admin to block him. Thanks for letting me know, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Note

Hi all. I've been really busy for the last week so I apologise to everyone for not getting back to queries sooner. I have work tomorrow, then I'll be free all evening to deal with all my talk messages and emails. Once again, I'm sorry for the delay. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

About the Mediation on Diablada

Hello Ryan, I've read above that you were busy lately. But I was wondering what happened with the mediation for the Diablada article. We both wrote our opening statements last month but since then nothing more happened, perhaps you forgot to put the case in your watchlist. I've been gathering information and writing an alternative article addressing most of my observations to be able to have two different versions to discuss but I didn't want to edit the article directly during this time to avoid further conflict besides I didn't finish it yet and is only a general idea of what I gathered.

However, I find this whole process extremely tiring, I try to remain civil but reading Marshal's way to address me for over 5 months is just upsetting. I really don't appreciate his Opening statement he tries to focus on attacking me instead of focusing in the content, if it were a user conduct case, it'd be obvious just by seeing the failed Mediation cabal who is the uncivil one. Besides this whole process has been deteriorating and affecting other articles about Bolivian culture, perhaps after this we'd need to have a look on other articles that are patrolled by MarshalN20 or this other editor (or DUCK or WP:SPA) Unknown Lupus who has been battling the article before and now is hounding me.

I hope we can find a solution for this, but if you're too busy I think I can wait for some time.Best regards. Erebedhel - Talk 00:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

If you're around

I left a request here before realizing that AlexandrDmitri apparently has a real life and such and doesn't edit daily (heresy, I know!). So, if you're inclined. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem - I've left her a note. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Awesome. Thanks for the quick reply. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Diablada situation

Hello Ryan, I just noticed this was on Erebedel's workshop: [32]. Could you just read the introduction to it? That's all I ask from you. After you're done reading it, ask yourself this question (just one question): "Is this neutral, or does it favor a specific country as the originator and the other countries as conspirators who are trying to debacle the originator's claim?" That is all. Cordially.--MarshalN20 | Talk 13:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll point one thing and I'll point it clearly, this is the last time I'll tolerate this person to address or comment about me in a disrespectful way. This person should evaluate his own editions before trying to pretend he is entitled to come here and denigrate me as he has been doing for these past months, this has to end and it has to end now. Erebedhel - Talk 14:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
How am I being disrespectful? I'm asking Ryan to evaluate what, obviously, you are seeking to include in the article. Despite Ryan has not made any further comments in the Mediation case, he is still our mediator and deserves to be updated with what is going on. I have not commented anything in regards to you, but rather I am asking Ryan to evaluate the material. You should understand the difference between commenting on an editor and commenting on the material. Moreover, perhaps you should understand the meaning of Hypocrisy? Prior to this message, on January 26 of 2010 you write: "perhaps after this we'd need to have a look on other articles that are patrolled by MarshalN20." In fact, it should be me the one who asks you to please not comment about me in disrespectful ways; which I do so at this very moment.
Having said that, I apologize Ryan for this absurd situation in which you voluntarily became involved. There must be some way in which Erebedel must understand that being biased towards Bolivia in the article is by no means the appropiate way to go. You are the only one who can solved this situation Ryan.--MarshalN20 | Talk 15:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk

Hi,

I am interested in becoming a Clerk. Even though I have a small amount of edits, I feel this would be a perfect role for me. How would I continue with the process? Enti342 (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

ArbCom query

Thanks indeed, Ryan! Tony (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom logo design challenge :-)

Just noting that I have noted your image addition ... but having said so many words on the ArbCom talk page recently, am restraining myself from leaping to respond with my usual enthusiasm. ... But rest assured that your participation (however trepidatious) has been met with silent but total approval. :-) Cheers. Proofreader77 (interact) 22:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks on the MZM case

Ncmvocalist has made a completely unprovoked personal attack on my character and adminning ability on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Proposed decision. Besides being an attack on my person rather than my opinion, its based on a complete misunderstanding of my opinion. In a related discussion on my talk page (which he also started by attacking me), I asked him to refactor it, but he is refusing to do so. Mr.Z-man 17:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I can't see anything that blatantly attacks you, I do think he's pushing out the drama mongering somewhat at this stage so I've left him a warning. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Hey :-)

Look, I see that user page as an attack on a number of editors I know and respect. Are you saying that it's not baiting? It's fairly obvious it is - I'm sure if another editor who was not so well known as Giano maintained this sort of page it would be quite short lived, and the editor blocked in fairly short order.

As for the ANI threads - the first was shut down because they didn't want to "poke the bear", yet disruption on Wikipedia:Incivility blocks continued, and the second thread is very clear that Giano has violated 3RR and has been warning that he'll restore an old thread, even with four editors opposing him, and he doesn't care whether he mangles other threads. Yes, he says he's bad at it, but he's pretty clear that he doesn't really care one way or another.

Am I really the problem here? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I don't really monitor Giano's page, so if you wanted to send me a message, my talk page is here, not here. :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not trying to suggest you're a problem editor - I'm just trying to suggest that you should perhaps just drop the Giano issue. When someone nominates a userspace page from an editor who they are in a different dispute with, it smacks of retaliation. If I was you, I'd move on to another part of the wiki for a little bit and put Giano firmly behind you. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for telling me this :-) I appreciate that you don't consider I'm a problem editor, even if I don't back down terribly easily. Giacomo may have yet met his match with me and that thread - it certainly isn't going back in the form it was in.
Now I sure you know this by now, but I would like to stay away from Giacomo as he's a nasty piece of work, but unfortunately I am actually the one who proposed Wikipedia:Incivility blocks. He is causing disruption there, how do you propose I deal with this? I'm certainly not going to be chased off the policy proposal I'm concentrating on! Would you say the same thing to Giacomo and ask him to stay away from me? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for posting that on AC/N

That was entirely my own fault, and I would not do it again.[33] It didn't occur to me that it would draw so much fire. The previous announcements had little fanfare and I thought this similarly was Not A Big Deal. Cool Hand Luke 17:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries - I'm not sure why there's been such a big deal to be honest. I read it as a simple courtesy announcement from the committee - certainly not for people to get their knickers in a twist over. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I like things like that on AC/N, it keeps all arbcoms work in one spot. ViridaeTalk 02:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please help about accusations.

Hi! I was recently accused of linkspamming by a user called history2007. Anyone that will check this manually will see that I linked every single wiki article to the specific topic on the site called catholicrevelations.com I was reading on where I found the different works. They say that "it seems that it's linkspamming." IT SEEMS? I read the wiki rules carefully before I started adding info and yet the user Beetstra removed my additions without even checking the pages I linked to. Anyone that will take the time to watch them can verify that I am following wiki rules. I am swedish so I hope my english is understandable. I hope you can help me and resolve this situation so I can continue adding relevant info without being called "linkspammer." Thank you.Humilityisfine (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

RPGs

Hey Ryan. I just wanted to let you know that I replied to your aspersions on my good name and character and provided a couple of diffs of involvements where I was proactive in seeking to head off and resolve disputes. One of the problems I have is that I am relentlessly hounded by disruptive trolling from editors such as Tarc. I think the negative images they cast about me are damaging, but there's not much I can do about stopping it. I just try to ignore it, but it certainly takes a toll on my image, how I'm received by others, and on the collegial editing atmosphere I'd like to enjoy. I hope you'll have an opportunity to work with me on articles at some point. I think you'll find I'm opinionated, but quite cooperative, flexible, amenable to compromise and collegial. :) Take care of yourself. And do think long and hard about the problem of trolls that pop-up relentlessly to cause disruption and to antagonize good faith editors, as well as abusive admins. We've seen the ill effects quite a lot these last few days and they're very damaging. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

unblock

If you disagree with a block of mine in future you are welcome just to unblock it, I don't take myself too seriously. However a proper block appeal first might have been better. --BozMo talk 07:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You should redact

Setting an example is the most effective form of communication [34] as I keep having to remind myself. Please consider redacting the sweeping statements and the unsupported "drama-loving troll" part. I think that would help. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to redact something that's true - he is a drama loving troll. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 08:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bureaucrat Unchecking

I'm not sure how you can possibly determine that there is consensus for this large change when the level of support was less than what we require administrators to gain in their RfA's - for this proposal to have support to carry on, it should probably have been in the nineties, not 70%. In my opinion, the close was completely wrong, and that's from someone who couldn't care less about whether bureaucrats have the ability or not. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand your uncertainty. However, we generally accept that 70%+ is in the region of consensus. (Indeed, you don't need me to tell you, that for ArbCom decisions 60% is accepted as consensus). And in this case there were two discussions. Taking them together, and the points they raised, it appeared to me (after re-examining my own maths!) that the proposal had gained enough community support and justification to move it forward for discussion. The areas of concern raised by those objecting, I singled out as needing to be discussed as part of the moving forward. I am comfortable with that close, but will be happy to examine again any particular points of concern you have. SilkTork *YES! 15:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

ArbCom case has been opened

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Access Please

Ryan, I think you are an op in the admin channel? I am an admin but have been away for a while and have added my name to get access to wikipedia-en-admins. If you get a chance can you add me back or tell me who to speak to? Thanks, JodyB talk 03:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jody - I'm not at home for a few hours but I'll gladly get to it when I do. What's your IRC nick? If you need it done quickly, you might want to contact Rjd0060 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Regards, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone already got it but thanks...JodyB talk 14:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

User you recently blocked

Dear Ryan, you blocked User:Roux with an expiry time of yesterday for incivility, which is the eighth civility block he has received amidst 12 total blocks. On an admin's talk page, I made a polite request (not a demand, but a respectful "please" and "thank you" request). Despite having no connection to the discussion at all, Roux showed up with an edit summary "stop making up crap about how wikipedia 'works'--it only works that way in your rabid inclusionist head." You would think the day after a block expires, someone would not immediately personally attack someone else. Because there have already been multiple blocks and warnings for civility this month alone, I am not sure my warning will be sufficient or even acknowledged as it is coming from me whom he apparently dislikes. Indeed, this was his reaction followed subsequently by this swearword laden reply. As such, I am giving you a heads up as it might be worthwhile keeping an eye on it. Thank you. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I've blocked him for 1 month - he was only back for 2 days and that was unacceptable. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Good block, I was about 30 seconds behind you. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Some people just don't learn - if I was him, I'd have been on best behaviour for a few weeks at least. I'm half tempted to increase it to an indef but I think we'll see if he returns in a month. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
His response to you was even more over the top, especially the edit summary with explicit allusions to male genitalia. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Roux

Given that you have just email blocked Roux, which I'm not going to comment on, could I request that, per his request, you delete his userspace pages and blank his talk page? See the edit comment on [35]. I would get in contact with him to ask him if he really wanted that to happen, but I don't have his email. Hipocrite (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah of course. I'm going to have a shower but I'll get to it later on tonight. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
In a scenario where the user is indeffed, do we normally add an indeffed template to the userpage? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Not always - he's requested it to be deleted anyway so I'm going to leave it at that. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting the page and allowing the user to depart with dignity. Hipocrite (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement

I will consider where I can shorten; but it is important to show Arbcom the actual words being used. Any clerk who refactors my statement, without my consent, will become a party to the case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking a look. I'll give you time to shorten it, but I will refactor it should you not do it in a reasonable time frame. I'm not sure how acting in a an official clerk capacity could make us involved in the Catholic Church article dispute. Regards, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Since the bulk of the statement is the words of the bad editors, removing them is weakening the case for ArbCom to intervene and strengthening the usual obfuscation. Their words are a stronger plea than my opinion could be.
For my part, I called a Xandar a liar because he lied; removing his lie is interfering with my defense - and so taking sides.
On the other hand, it is difficult to edit my own prose. I will have another look at it later; but if you have a shorter draft to propose, I will certainly consider it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
You have succeeded in sounding rude; but I do not mean to make your job more difficult.
If you can see how to reduce this to 500 words without losing content, please let me see a draft. I cannot see how to do so without seriously injuring my case (unless Johnbod has withdrawn his comment after it was refactored). Is it the business of clerks to abridge the pleas? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The chief quote is Nancy's RFC - but how do I make clear what it omits to say without quoting in full or paraphrasing (which might be as long) ? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Cut the Gordian knot, and replaced entirely by the case that AtbCom would consider this at all, or at least offer some relief. I trust this is under 500 words. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Much appreciated - I've been unbelievably busy over the last couple of days so I didn't have chance to come up with something for you. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wendy Richard

Oops, sorry, total brain freeze on that article. Happened to see it on the Wikipedia Main Page, I saw the February death date and totally overlooked the 2009. Safiel (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey there - no worries at all, it was an easy mistake to make - I've done plenty of similar things before. I happen to like Wendy Richard so I have her article on my watch list - that's how I saw it. I'm surprised it's a year ago - I thought it was only a few months back. Take care, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 02:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Response on Trusilver action

My contribution is pared down to 564 words by Microsoft Word count. Is that acceptable? Brews ohare (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup, that'll do. Thanks for doing that. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

Recusal

I cautiously recuse on cases. In this one, I recused from the outset because of your key role in the case. I think I might have even promised somewhere to recuse in cases involving you because of your influential opposition vote during my ArbCom election. I would not want to seem prejudiced against you if for some reason I concluded that you were overzealous or something.

Honestly, I don't have any ill will over the ArbCom election, and I thought your opposition was motivated by a legitimate concern, but I'm not sure about your feelings on the matter. If you do not think I should recuse from all cases involving you, I won't do so in the future. That said, I will not be participating in the CoM request; "unrecusing" has sometimes been dramatic, and I have confidence that the committee can handle this case. Cool Hand Luke 21:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I will be mindful of that in the future. For what it's worth, I also think you're a top-notch clerk. I try to support the clerks when they reign in the chaos. I was taking bar exams when the Geogre mess precipitated, but I was very disappointed to learn about your resignation later (actually, I was very unhappy with that mess for a number of reasons, but that was one of them). I was glad to see you rejoin. Cool Hand Luke 21:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Keenyah Hill

A tag has been placed on Keenyah Hill requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 00:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for your suggestion. I do need some help actually, you can see the discussion here [36]-which started shortly after edit war accords were sounded. I don't feel that the other side is realy interested in discussion (even if he said so), that he properly use sources or puting his POV aside and being neutral when edit. However, this specific issue is pretty fresh and seemingly on little essence. So, I don't know if arbitration request is the right thing to do, or what the right thing to do at all is..Will be grateful for every response--Gilisa (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Keenyah Hill

I have nominated Keenyah Hill, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keenyah Hill (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

  • User:ChildofMidnight is restricted to editing main (article) space, the talk pages of articles he has edited, Template talk:Did you know, and his own talk and user talk pages only. In all cases he is forbidden from discussing the behavior of other editors, real or perceived, outside of his own user talk page. ChildofMidnight may apply to the Committee for exemptions to this restriction for the purposes of good faith dispute resolution on a case-by-case basis. This remedy is concurrent (and cumulative) with any extant topic bans, and consecutive to any editing ban.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

psst...

The talk page tends to get ignored from what I've seen, so I figured I should probably poke one of you "clerks" re: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Categorization. It's not hugely important for the category to be added, but it would be nice. I don't think that this would be controversial at all, but the page is protected (and I don't have tools anyway), so... *shrug*
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Evidence

Cheers for that, I do have tendency to ramble on a bit. By the way, good luck at Manchester, I looked at it many years ago but went elsewhere. Not a bad uni. If your studying Law by the way might I recommend the book market things they have a few times a week I think, down oxford Street? If your unfamiliar, head out of town past Manchester Met but before you hit the Royal Infirmary. Might save yourself a few bob. And again, thanks for that. Tucker talk 18:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement/Evidence

Hi mate. You have refracted user Kbobs word count at the TM arbitration evidence section and warned him for the final time that if he increased it once more above 1000 words his evidence would be removed. Alas, he has once again added more to it with his word count now standing at over a 1000 words and increasing [37]. You couldn't have a word could you? Not wishing to sound like I am telling on teacher but seems a bit unfair plus a lot like "cheating" and a disrespect for any administrator to be honest. Taking the Mick just a little? Cheers. Tucker talk 21:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to confirm it is this user and this warning: [38] Cheers Tucker talk 21:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar Arbcom

Sorry, I missunderstood what was going on. --Gibnews (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Evidence

Thanks for your note. I hadn't been sure how rebuttals were factored in. I'll mostly be away from the computer for the next 24 hours, but I'll try to at least move a block of it to a subpage. I'm not sure if using sub-pages helps reduce the ArbCom's reading load, or makes it worse instead, but it seems to have become a standard practice.   Will Beback  talk  17:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Will - a subpage is a good idea. Just pop it in bold when you link to it on the main evidence page so the arbitrators will see it. I know for a fact that the arbitrators actually find it more effective. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, good to know. BTW, I think this notice may be on the wrong user page.[39] Did you mean it for Keithbob?   Will Beback  talk  17:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Oops, so it was - thanks for spotting that. Hopefully all is sorted now. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Wait a minute here. You're misapplying the 1000 word limit. That limit clearly and explicitly applies to main evidence and not to rebuttals. I asked Seddon about this twice two weeks ago, and pointed out the appliable language. [40] Having gotten no response, why should I have thught that I'm reading the plain words on the page incorrectly? Fladrif (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The evidence section word limit is for your full section - it includes rebuttals and responses. Where does it say it doesn't? Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
You are incorrect. It says (third sentence on the top of the page):

"Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible." [Emphasis in original][41]

The 1000 word limit applies only to main evidence, and not to responses. Please restore my deleted material and that of any other editor whose rebuttal you incorrectly chopped.Fladrif (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
No, it includes rebuttals and responses - what the page is saying is that if you do decide to respond in discussion, you need to keep them as short as possible. The talk page is where discussion should take place. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with that reading, but if that is the interpretation that you want to go with, fine. I'd suggest that the instructions be reworded in the template to make that interpretation explicit since it is by no means a necessary or even a reasonable one. None of the editors have chosen to respond to evidence presented by other editors on the talk page of the Evidence page; they have all done so in Rebuttal sections on the Evidence page itself. That being said, I'll cut back my material to get the whole lot under 1000 words, but this would have been unnecessary had anyone responded to my earlier questioning of this interpretation. Fladrif (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ryan, out of curiosity, what are you using to calculate word counts? I seem to have gotten much smaller counts than you. Anyway, I just moved all of the evidence to the subpage. Splitting it doesn't really make sense, and if the Arbs are reading subpages then it's simpler to keep it together.   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What word count are you using and what did you get? I'm using this tool and from a little test I just did after seeing your post, I think it's a little inaccurate. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, from another test I did, it's about +/- 10% so it's not that inaccurate. I'm trying to give everyone a leeway anyway of up to 100 words. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I've been using a Windows sidebar gadget that counts the words in the clipboard. It was reporting closer to 1200 words, where you said it was over over 1500 words. I'll have to doublecheck that I'm using gadget - it may be ignoring short words, etc.   Will Beback  talk  22:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I just checked again, using the text from this version: [42] The sidebar gadget reports 1235, while countwords reports just 1007, so it looks like my tool was overstating the correct total. A text editor reports 1019 words, and MS word reports 1042 words. Are you sure that there were over 1500 words?   Will Beback  talk  23:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, it said it was above 1400 - I think it was 1467 off the top of my head. If you want to readd your text, then feel free to do so. Try and get it to under 1000 words on ms word then we can be sure it's under the limit! I'd trust MS any day of the week rather than my 'dodgy' online word counter! Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I cut down about 50 words and now MS Word reports 992 words, so I've restored that material. (At the same time, my 'gadget' reports it to be 1180 words and the countword java program reports just 954 words. That's quite a range!)   Will Beback  talk  23:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but it looks to me like Tuckerj1976 was editing his own evidence section.[43] I can't say that the edit was helpful, but it appears to have been allowable. Or am I mistaken about whose section it's in?   Will Beback  talk  10:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies - he was. I've reverted my reversion and my warning. I'll go an eat humble pie and offer an apology to Tuckerj1976. Thanks for spotting it. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Maybe someday we'll find a better way of presenting cases that's easier on the parties, the clerks, and the committee members. Until then, mistakes are par for the course.   Will Beback  talk  11:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

KeithBob Arbitration Word Limit

Hey Ryan, thanks for the heads up on the word limit. I have added a few things back in, but I think I am within the 1000 word limit. If you think I'm over, please let me know and I can quickly adjust. Thanks for you help keeping all the ducks in a row.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)'

You wrote:

Arbcom

With respect, I'm completely rewriting my statement. A little patience would be helpful. It's a bit ridiculous for you to put in a redacted version, then the moment I try to do my own redaction, to threaten me with a block, before I'm even done editing. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 23:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to redact your statement immediately to under the 500 word limit? You're extremely close to a block now. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Durova's statement has never been at 500 words. You have only ever seen fit to redact mine. Please show fair and balanced behaviour. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 23:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Apologies. When I checked last night she was under. I've asked her to redact it now. Now, if you could get to redacting yours that would be most appreciated. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It'll take some time. I have a very complicated case to make, and you have basically been redacting me constantly while I was in the process of editing it, causing unexplained edit conflicts. I'll remove my complaint, though. I'd ask you to remove your warning on my talk page. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 23:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

440 words. Now, if you hadn't blocked, we wouldn't have all this damn drama. I could have gotten it down to that already. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 01:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

TM ArbCom: Tuckerj1976

Hi Ryan, It seems Tuckerj1976 has removed text from my evidence section.[44] Can you address this please? Thanks!-- — Kbob • Talk • 04:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a word with him - I agree that he shouldn't be editing your evidence at all. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, he was editing his own evidence which he was allowed to do. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Upon closer inspection of the diff I see you are correct. My apologies to both you and Tuckerj1976.-- — Kbob • Talk • 14:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Prolixity as disruption

I've long felt that walls of text should be actively discouraged. I appreciate your moves to enforce the arbitration limits, which have been the accepted standard for years but have been ignored by some editors. You'd think all Wikipedians would pride themselves on their succinctness, but this is not the case. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 04:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your words. When I make a statement on the requests page, I do so knowing that there is a 500 word limit so keep under it. Others do as well. When parties go over that limit, they get a reminder at first and we ask them that they redact it - it's simply to make sure they're aware. If they don't, or do it again, we're being more proactive in redacting it for them. It's all about having a level playing field - why should one party benefit and get a larger statement simply because they've gone against the rules? That's my take on it anyway. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Gib: Thanks and help on linking the arbitration

Thanks for the warning on downsizing. I asked Newyorkbrad whether it would be OK to link the arbitration case in the Gib talk page and he answered it might be OK after some time and maybe an arbclerk could help out with the wording[45]. I was just thinking something on the lines of "An arbitration case has been open dealing with some of the issues under discussion in this page (link)". What do you think? Could you put it there, or maybe I should do it myself? Thanks (and sorry for adding some more work with these nuances) -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there Imalbornoz. Thanks for your note - I agree that it is a good idea to post a note on the article talk page, so I've put our standard notification on the talk page so everyone who edits the request is aware. Hopefully that's what you meant. Regards, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
That was exactly it. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Sorry but I do happen to think it slightly unfair that several editors have been allowed to make disparaging comments about me but I'm unable to have my response on record because I have had real life problems. I have done as you suggested but feel at a distinct disadvantage that I'm going to find it very difficult to defend myself at this point in time. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 14:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Apology

Don't worry, s/he has been following my edits and incorrectly complaining to any admin he can about them since I registered. It's easy to get gaught up in it inadvertently Tucker talk 20:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Redaction

Sure, I will email ArbCom. However, I put the header back there, as this is a major concern I have and want others to know I have that concern even if the details are redacted. I assume that is fair? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup, that's fair - it sounds like a better idea than simple removal in my opinion. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
As I have been given no guidance on this, can you please confirm that if I email ArbCom privately with the full evidence, which will contain his real name, I will not suffer any penalties for doing so? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
No, you won't get penalized for forwarding the real name to the Arbitration Committee directly, that is unless they decide you've been harassing him and going too far in ascertaining his real life identity. Presuming it was easy to find, then I don't see a problem. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Also you may wish to permanently delete this [46] too. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom as an outing fishing expedition

Ryan, I'm getting rather cheesed with Arbcom being used as a fishing expedition for GibNews' real life identity using innuendo and statements of specific jobs making it easy for one to put together Red Hat's claims. Now, I'm not one of GibNews fans and rather detest his constant soapboxing, but this kind of harrassing bullshit is little more than an attempt by one party to badger another out of the process by basically threatning to out them and beginning the process. The reason we are here is the focus on editors over content and really, this whole case is just bringing out the worst rather than solving anything. Can you please have a word with RedHat and look into getting his edits oversighted? --Narson ~ Talk • 12:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you email me with either diffs where he's added it, or a link to the specific section you have issue with? I'll certainly act then. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Never mind, I got it earlier today - I've deleted the revisions, but they don't qualify for oversight so that's the best I can do. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, that is what I meant by oversight :) Once you get beyond what a user can do, it is rather a mystery for me and I'm rather glad of it. A little odd to be before arbcom without even so much as a block to my name, but you live and learn. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

A few days late...

I remembered last night that you had been an admin now for about three years, so just now I looked at your successful RfA and sure enough, your third anniversary of you being an admin was the tenth of this month. This is a few days late, but happy third adminship anniversary! Best. Acalamari 22:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Thank you very much - I forgot it was my adminship anniversary to be honest! Yours will be coming up in a couple of months if I recall correctly as well! How are things? Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome! Mine's in July, so it's not just yet but thanks for mentioning it! It's actually funny to think it's been three years...it feels like it was yesterday. Anyway, things are pretty good with me, and I hope things are fine with you too. Acalamari 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

1000 words

Hi. Thanks for the notice (even if its part of the process). I've refactored my statement here as demanded. Could you confirm if it is now under the 1000 words limit? (I don't know if diffs count as words and that sort of things). Cheers! Cremallera (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. One more thing: sorry to be a pain, I've restored a few words (mostly transcription of specific statements found in large diffs, to save some time to the eventual readers). I think the text is still under 1000 words or exactly on that mark, but if you see otherwise just tell me and it will be definitely addressed. I won't annoy you with more work thereinafter. I promise :) Cremallera (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

Vandalism left on your page

It's being dealt with here [47]. Ridernyc (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryan_Postlethwaite/archive22&oldid=1149991137"