Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:59, 15 April 2008

Ryan Postlethwaite is away on vacation and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archive

Note

Believe it or not, I appreciated your BLP concerns on Saeb Erekat - and I think it helped us reach a far less inflammatory version and far more encyclopedic than it would have been without your guidance.

Currently, there is a similar problem, but from the other direction, on Avigdor Liberman. I'd respectfully request your input on the issue.

Here is the start of the related talk: .

Cheers, Jaakobou 11:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This page still needs your attention. Jaakobou 14:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC) correcting typo 23:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I request you review the following edit summaries.

• "rm non-WP:RS and soapbox context." Nickhh, 20:41, 9 April 2008
• "All your sources are non-RS or misattributed." Nickhh, 20:49, 9 April 2008

With respect, Jaakobou 21:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

p.s. This should probably be connected with activity on Saeb Erekat.

• TalkPage: "The massacre claims were not "refuted"" Nickhh, 20:54, 14 February 2008
• TalkPage: "Nickhh, the massacre, grave digging, coverup, and obliteration of the entire camp from existence claims were indeed refuted. We have multiple high-quality sources within the article saying just that." (6 sources provided) Jaakobou 05:04, 15 February 2008
• "Remove whole controversy/criticism section" - Nickhh, 20:10, 6 April 2008

Cordially, Jaakobou 21:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection of User talk:Jéské Couriano

Dude. He doesn't want it. . I already offered. Pedro :  Chat  23:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I know, I saw, but it was getting stupid and it can easily be stopped. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's intense. I guess if Jeske is happy to take the flak then up to him. All power to his right arm. Got to love the admin bit at times.... :) Pedro :  Chat  23:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

While protection *can* stop it, they'll just go after other users. Protection in this case is worse than blocking. -Jéské 00:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Dear Ryan, I saw you are willing to take the mediation case for IZAK and I. I am very glad for this. Should I go about filing it with the MedCom or with you directly? Thank you very very much for your interest and desire to get involved. Bstone (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you file a case at WP:RFM and as soon as everyone accepts, we'll get it speedily accepted. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. FYI, I am on the road and flying around the country for the next 2 days so my apologies if I am a bit delayed. Bstone (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ryan and Bstone: In light of the rejection by the ArbCom of Bstone's failed recent proposed RfA against me, and a similar rejection of complaints at ANI by Bstone that failed against me, it would be smart and indeed it would be the correct procedure that before yet another wasteful and wasted line of attack is undertaken by Bstone against me this time at RfM, that the still very wide open RfC initiated by Bstone at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/IZAK2 with its "proposed verdicts" that was very carefully worked on and seen to by many editors very familair with the facts and issues involved, and where the vast majority of editors have rejected Bstone's claims against me, that it be brought to complete closure, obviating a lot of further time wasting. There is no point in creating confusion by keeping many editors including quite a few admins waiting to hear the end at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/IZAK2 only to have yet a new drama start up at RfM that will only repeat the same story. So let's be focused and not get forgetful that there is still unresolved business at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/IZAK2 that must be closed out first, and only then should one decide if the RfM should be pursued or not. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

line of attack is undertaken by Bstone against me. I do hope mediation will help us in our communication, IZAK. Under no stretch of the imagination am I attacking you. Nothing could possibly be further from the truth. I very much look forward to mediation. Bstone (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bstone: Call it what you will, you have spent your time attacking me and trying to undermine me all to no avail. Now that your request for mediation has been turned down, and you have been rejected by the ArbCom, you have still ignored what you started at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/IZAK2. Therefore, at a minimum, the motions at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/IZAK2 must be brought to closure as well. Once that is done, I would be glad to debate and discuss anything with you on either your or my talk pages, or at WP:JUDAISM because that is where I started my complaints against you since you were the one who nominated for deletion a number of articles/stubs about synagogues and took umbrage that anyone should question your nominations, where you should have kept things in the first place and there are good Judaic editors there including a number of admins, instead of running around all over Misplaced Pages trying to find admins and committees to help you deal with what you should be doing on your own, talking to me directly instead of labelling everything I say a "violation" of this or that and beating around the bush. IZAK (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Tagging

Seriously Calton, you've had numerous admins telling you to stop tagging every person you warn with {{temporary userpage}}. I'm now formally telling you to stop tagging user talk pages as such.

Wrong. I've had a couple of people -- apparently not understanding actual policy and actual practice -- complaining. Excess pages get deleted all the time, and if you have a problem with that, perhaps you ought to take it up with the admins who are doing the actual deleting. Actual evidence of actual policy and practice, please, instead of vague handwaving, vague worries, and vague threats, please. --Calton | Talk 14:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You've been warned Calton, simple as that. There is no policy saying you delete these pages, certainly not speedily and not all those you tag are going to be blocked. You've been asked to stop by about 5 different admins - I strongly suggest you do.

"Because I said so". VERY convincing rhetorical technique. Any updates on when you'll tell me 1) the actual reason not to tag them?; 2) the actual policy saving spammer pages for eternity?; 3) the actual problems and/or disruption caused by the tagging?; 4) the actual policy or policy interpretation I'm supposed to be violating?: 5) evidence that you've taken up your concerns with those who actually carry out the deletions, who are presumably actually causing whatever vaguely defined harm you're alleging? Hint: {{temporary userpage}} =/= "speedy deletion", no matter how you bend the meaning of words.

I'm well within policy and practice -- and definitely improving the encyclopedia -- and you need to provide even the slightest justification or reasoning why I'm not. Again, "Because I said so" is not a reason. --Calton | Talk 14:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You show me the part of the deletion policy that states that talk pages of news users are deleted... There isn't one. You are tagging pages of people that aren't even blocked, some are even very unlikely to be blocked. This is disruptive because these talk pages shouldn't be deleted. No more wikilawyering, just stop it. [

Wikilawyering? Now you're just being ridiculous. You avoided every single question -- including the one about the actual admins doing the actual deleting, so presumably causing ACTUAL harm by your lights -- and, having nothing to fall back on but vague handwaving and footstamping, you have to resort to crying "wikilawyering"?

This is disruptive because these talk pages shouldn't be deleted. - That's not so much wikilawyering as it is begging the question. Again, "Because I said so" is not a reason -- and, again, why are some admins regularly deleting such pages if they're not supposed to? Perhaps you should leave some vague threats on their user talk pages, too.

You are tagging pages of people that aren't even blocked, some are even very unlikely to be blocked. - That statement is, how do you say, true only on a technicality: I tag pages of people who are about to be blocked or should be -- pages that, if the blocking admin does their due diligence would leave a block notice -- with its built-in {{temporary userpage}} notice, and what were you claiming about such pages not being deleted? -- but frequently don't, so the pages would otherwise remain for eternity. Talk pages of spammers and creators of user pages disguised as spam, of whom few -- if any -- will return after their initial attempts fail. Would you care to point out all of these people who "are even very unlikely to be blocked"? Betcha can't dredge up more than a few, if any whatsoever: I, however, can fill this page with counter-examples.

But hey, let's read the text, like you wanted me to: This userpage has been identified as inactive and containing no versions requiring archiving. It will be deleted after a reasonable period of time. You show me the part that requires the archiving...there isn't any. --Calton | Talk 15:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• This has come up at WP:AN. FYI. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

WP/AN

Since you've declined to provide any actual rationale to me other than vague threats, perhaps you feel up to providing something for the fine folks at WP:AN -- including why you're so militant about this to begin with. Actual reasons would help. --Calton | Talk 15:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Policies

"I hate this attitude that new users deserve to be bitten if the haven't read every policy and guideline." I bet the users who advocate this haven't read most of the policies and guidelines. Thanks for the support of newcomers. --Blechnic (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

You recently blocked 82.235.183.98 for 24 hours. That IP is an open Tor node. Why the 24 hour block? Are you a complete moron? Thank you. 74.69.77.104 (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

clearing the air...

I bought you a beer - just to say that I think we've both said our piece about the posting / reposting stuff, and I hope I didn't upset or stress you out too much.. Our disagreement about the best course of action won't really cause the wiki too much harm, and it certainly won't stop you from being a tip top wikipedian! cheers! Privatemusings (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

WG

Hi, I've posted some new proposals at the WG wiki and would appreciate everyone's input. Check also the Recent Changes there to see pages with new activity. Thanks, Elonka 06:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Ryan, I've been working on a page at the WG wiki which I'd like to port over here to the New Admin School (or at least the top section of it). Do you have a few minutes to look at it, or shall I just go ahead and port? --Elonka 03:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My RFA has closed

My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence § t/e 18:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Tagging by Calton - No resolution

This thread has now been archived at AN and I don't see that there was any resolution. As I noted at TfD, I have been removing all instances of {{temporary userpage}} posted by Calton that were either duplicative of indef block tags or were on the page of a non-indef blocked user. Calton is probably right most of the time that these users should be indef blocked, this just isn't the right way to effect this. I find it interesting though that Calton often responds to blame the admins who are doing the deleting if there are errors, yet Calton is reverting my removals of the tag. --Doug. 21:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we might need to move to blocking if he carries on. There was clearly a consensus on AN that his taggings were inappropriate, most people that commented said so. A block would be protective (so appropriate) because it would stop him continuing his disruptive tagging. How do you read the consensus of the AN thread? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-reading the whole thread it's clearer than I had thought. The only ones speaking in Calton's favor are clear that Calton is probably fairly accurate in identifying promotional usernames and spamm but that these things need to be sent to WP:UAA or WP:AIV for blocking before tagging and then they should be tagged with an indef block tag. Hopefully the template will go down the tubes here shortly. Calton made a comment that my removal of duplicative tags was unnecessary - maybe, unless the tag gets deleted - but Calton replacing a tag on a non-blocked user page is really troubling and kind of over the top.--Doug. 01:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding SqueakBox and the Pro-pedophile activism article

It seems SqueakBox is bent on engaging in another edit war. He did not heed your advice and has yet again reinserted the contested material without really trying to discuss it on the Talk Page. He has also now definitely violated the 3RR rule. Thus, I would like to request that he be temporarily blocked from editing, according to standard Misplaced Pages procedure - both for inciting and perpetuating an edit war, and for reverting more than three times material of a single article within a 24-hour period. If rules are to be observed, they have to apply to all editors, and SqueakBox is clearly in violation of policies that he is savvy to. ~ Homologeo (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the page. Whilst Squeak did violate 3RR and I was prepared to block, there were numerous other users reverting each other and therefore protection was the only option, making any block on any editor at this time punitive. I'm going to look at the history of the article over the next few days and issue some final warnings to a number of parties who were involved. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Good move on the protection of the page, though regrettable as well (since improvement can't happen in the mean time, and this negative standstill has occurred in the past). The only thing I would like for you to consider at this moment is the version on which the article will remain frozen for the next week or so. It would make sense to revert back to the least controversial version that has been in effect for quite some time now, and that was in place before this edit war began, which was also the version that all mediation parties eventually agreed on and that got any sort of consensus in the past. ~ Homologeo (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur about the page protection.

Regarding any changes to "the Wrong Version" though, may I suggest that those changes be done based on actual WP:CONSENSUS, rather than one person's idea of which version was the last stable version. The mediation was private, and the mediation version was never implemented. During and after the mediation there was a rewrite of the intro that was accepted quite well before the SPA-activism activity of the last couple days. But determining which version that was may not be a simple matter.

That's the problem with the dispute and the reason the page needed to be protected. Now that protection is in place, changes would best be made using the {{editprotected}} process; for that to work out, editors will need to show that there is actual consensus about the changes requested.

To be clear about this, and with full disclosure: I wrote the intro version that has been in place for some time now, after the mediation. The version I wrote is not the one that is currently in place though, and I am not saying I support the current version. I do support the version I wrote, and apparently others do also since they didn't change it much, until the last couple days when the SPAs got going. So, yes, I'm involved and not neutral, but no, I am not partial to the current version. What I am partial to, and what I am requesting, is that no unilateral decisions be made about how to change the protected version, and that the consensus process be respected. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The "SPA-activism" you're referring to (which I also happen to have found quite annoying) had nothing to do with the portion of the intro that SqueakBox has once again become bent on changing. And the changes he's proposing have been discussed both in-private and out-in-the-open a number of times. Besides, there definitely seemed to be consensus on this part of the intro in the past couple of months (while your version was in place), considering that this issue was put aside, and even SqueakBox stopped attempting to introduce these very same edits, after being confronted by disagreement by majority of the editors involved within this article at the time. Thus, this is definitely not just my personal view of the situation. Besides, the recent RfC dealt exactly with this same issue (albeit with a slight word difference), and it was shown that most editors agree that the version SqueakBox is advocating is unacceptable, nonsensical, and clearly POV. ~ Homologeo (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If its bias is to be ignored, surely this version should be reverted by an admin, simply because it is factually inaccurate, as explained on the talk page. Lambton /_C 02:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Homologeo, I appreciate that you agree about the recent SPA-activity. And in kind, your comment goes to why I mentioned I don't particularly support the current version, so we are also in agreement there. I would be willing to review the recent changes and come up with a diff version that I personally would find appropriate, and if you and maybe some others would agree about that version, we could request the change be made. In other words, I am not advocating the current version, but I have a concern that if it's changed without an agreement in place, there could be additional problems resulting.

I suggest we await Ryan's response; perhaps we can agree on which historical version to return to, and then put it up for comment on the talk page of the article to request consensus from the others, so no-one feels this has been done off of the radar. Would that work for you? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That process has already begun. Avruch 02:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I will enter a comment there. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Good solid reasoning, Jack-A-Roe. I looked at the article's history, and have voiced my opinion on the Talk Page in regards to which version I think should be restored - it's the same one you and another editor are recommending. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, good sir

Hello from the States. Anyway, I once had a user page that you were most helpful in the past with deleting/undeleting. It is many months later, and I am back in a limited capacity, with a slightly different outlook. I see you are on vacation, no matter this issue is not pressing. Is it still possible to retrieve my old user page? IvoShandor (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Med case

Hi, Ryan. I filed the MedCom case for myself and IZAK. It's here. Thanks! Bstone (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the case got speedily rejected. I sent a note along to Anthony but thought I'd drop you a note as well. Bstone (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)