Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:15, 28 May 2008

Archive

Thanks

Thanks!

Thanks so much for your support in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. _{TravellingCari} 18:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hey Ryan Postlethwaite. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. I appreciate your trust. :) Best wishes, —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship Nonsense

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Pedophile_topic_mentorship#No.2C_srsly

I'm wondering whether Petra's patently false and damaging accusation towards me deserves place on a "mentorship" page. The dangerous thing about this is that it can actually be believed by someone who does not look at the logs. J*Lambton /_C 21:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"Smell the lawyer's office"

Are you sure that was a legal threat? When I read it, I interpreted it as some kind of reference to wikilawyering. I think it would have been better to shoot after asking questions. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I missed the discussion on Lambton's talk. Thanks. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Not when he was warned earlier this week for another comment that could be seen as a legal threat. He's agreed to retract it now, so I've unblocked. It was clearly meant to scare Petra by suggesting RL action - it wasn't anything to do with wikilawyering. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Bart Versieck

Hello Ryan. If you notice, I provided a link to the last discussion that I and another user (Moondyne) had with him. We told him that if he continued to cause such disruption, we would block him for three months without warning, and he agreed to this. And given how long this has been going (six or seven previous blocks), I don't particularly find it excessive. "Don't edit other people's comments" is not a hard instruction to follow, particularly when you clearly state many times that you understand this and promise not to do it again. Cheers, CP 01:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

But you two between you can't decide to block a user who makes minor infringments (and these latest ones were very minor) for three months. One edit was changing the header, which isn't even technically editing a comment. Would you please knock this back down to a maximum of a week? Ryan Postlethwaite 01:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Then how is this anything but punitive, the very thing that these blocks are meant to avoid? "Every time you do this, we'll block you for a week" - that's a punitive measure. I agree wholeheartedly with Moondyne's comment that his "behaviour just takes too much time and energy away from people who respect this project and it is my belief that your absence won't be a large loss". Bart has sent a very clear message that he does not care about respecting Misplaced Pages's policies, even after being asked numerous times and pledging constantly to modify his behavior. I just don't see any point to a one week block. Cheers, CP 01:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

But blocking for 3 months, for minor behavioural problems is silly given the fact Bart does some very productive stuff here. I honestly view a 3 month block as punitive. Would you prefer we take this to WP:AN to get wider administrative views? It might be a good idea to see what others have to think as I may be off the mark. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Try asking Moondyne before it comes to that. If he thinks that it should be lessened, I'll definitely agree as well. I say leave a note and give Moondyne 24 hours to respond before further action is taken, which will still be well within the week you are suggesting. Cheers, CP 01:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah good call - I'd certainly appreciate both your inputs before we proceed further, and as you say, it's still within the week I suggest. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 01:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Alas, I felt it was just a matter of time before Bart resumed his editing of other peoples comments again. Strategies in how to deal with this were discussed at a number of places including some private emails, his talk page (since archived) and ANI. I still support the 3 month block for the reasons CP has given above and if after this current block expires and the behaviour resumes, I would have to support a similar or longer term one again. Bart has 1) been given multiple short term blocks for the same thing; 2) promised to behave but continued on his merry way once his editing privilege was reinstated; 3) consumed a ridiculous amount of time from administrators and others asking him to abide by what is a really really simple policy. Ryan, I welcome your interest but requesting a shortened block is not constructive. I know the edits are not all that serious, but they are a flagrant breach of a policy which everyone else seems to be able to follow. I am not a policy wonk, but in this case I believe we have to draw a line in the sand. I believe that a 3 month break may just be enough to send the message through. But I'm happy for wider input if you wish. Moondyne 03:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd also add that if you read through the archives, there's a fairly clear consensus from a number of users for an extended block following Bart's warnings. Moondyne 11:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Red Rain in Kerala

Ey Up Ryan Postlethwaite,

Noting you comment on the Red Rain talk page a while back, you may be interested to know it's being reviewed again for FA status. At least I hope you still have some interest.

A chum with a penchant for panspermia had introduced me to the story in late 2005, so I read Louis and Kumar's three papers and the CESS paper, and went through a shedload of stuff on the internet. My conclusion was, and remains, that the cause was incomplete incineration.

On Misplaced Pages I thought I'd been quite careful and not overstepped the demarcation of original research and that I'd gently added factual information (e.g. the rather high concentration of heavy metals in the particles, or the unusually high concentration of Al). I lost interest after this paragraph I'd introduced was removed, though it remains in the schools version:

"More plausibly, the suggestion has been made that the red raindust was the result of incomplete incineration of chemical waste at the Eloor industrial zone, the particles being formed from microparticles of fly-ash or clay which coalesced around an aerosol of partly burnt organics as the incinerator plume cooled. The chemical composition of the raindust matches that of burnt organics plus clay; the fallout pattern matches with the prevailing winds; and various organic chemicals will form cellular structures which replicate in the presence of clay."

I'm not sure how best to sink finally the silly 'spores from space' idea. Are you still up for it? Or might it be better to leave it to die on its own? 87.113.211.135 (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Oops- was accidentally logged out so no sig. Davy p (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Edward Carson Mediation

Hi Ryan, I was wondering about your opinion as a mediator on this.

And the talk comment

My viewpoint is that the category exists, and that both it and the article entry are notable and are cited.

Thank you for your views in advance! Keysstep (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

PR block

I noticed you blocked PR for 72 hours for adding material from a site of questionable reliability. I have to say I think this was harsh, as far as I can see. I feel honor bound to defend PR, for I defended Jaakobou some time ago, against PR and Nishidani as it happens, for adding translated material from a somewhat similar source of the opposite POV. Jaakobou himself did some work trying to establish the reliability of the very site PR used. Nishidani considers the two cases quite parallel, and the discussion on the Kaplan matter seemed inconclusive in the various talk pages and archives. In any case, what is important, the material, the Kaplan interview, is obtainable from better sites, cf Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/PR, which oddly PR didn't use. Perhaps he forgot, which hardly seems blockable. I hope you might reconsider. Regards,John Z (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou contacted me regarding this thread and was unhappy about it. It seems you're referring a site called jewsagainstzionism.com? Jaakobou doesn't think he's ever called that a reliable source. If you're saying he has it would be better to present diffs because people's recollections aren't perfect, and ideally Jaakobou would rather not get dragged into this particular discussion at all. He's doing his best to avoid PR these days (which we probably all agree is a good idea). I have no opinon on PR's block; just asking that it stand or fall on its own merits. With respect, Durova 06:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean he called it an RS, just that Jaakobou , showing commendable good faith, made some attempt to explore the issue. bottom of page. (Roland is involved in an unrelated organization with a similar name to the one running that site, hence the confusion) I agree, PR and Jaakobou staying apart is a good idea. My point was that if someone as far from PR as Jaakobou could explore that site's & source's reliability seriously for even a minute, I think that helps show that blocking based on one edit using it is not usual. I should have said "explore" rather than work to establish, but I was tired. This was all just a side point, I don't want to mention or drag in Jaakobou any further; my apologies to him, my main desire was just to urge Ryan to reconsider PR.John Z (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that jewsagainstzionism is an obviously unreliable source; it's an polemical, anonymous, personal website. We don't even know the name of the person who runs it, just a P.O. Box number. This has been explained to PR numerous times, yet he continues to blithely insist there is nothing wrong with the site, and that no-one has ever given any reason why it might not be reliable. That is what is disruptive (or, rather, one of the many disruptive things PR regularly does). If you are able to find reliable sources confirming claims made by PR, that in no way absolves PR of his misbehavior in this matter. Jayjg 23:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Jayjg, and that's my exact reason behind the block. Just a few weeks ago, he was specifically told that the source was in no way reliable and should not be used, yet look what happened. This pattern of using troubling sources goes back a long way with PR and he's simply doing it to push his POV. It's gone on long enough now, and should it happen again, the block will be a lot longer. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, my position is that source-reliability is frequently not easy to determine, and can change on further research, and thus that a block made with no immediate warning (as far as I can tell) would only rarely be appropriate for this. Ryan, did you warn him a few weeks ago of blocking?; couldn't find anything like that (or the incident you speak of) or I would probably have kept my trap shut. I know much of PR's history and think that in his particular case this could be counterproductive. It's strange he used JAZ rather than the clearly better, whether "RS" or not, NKUSA one he should have known about. I'll see if I can edumucate PR as to the defects of JAZ and such sites. He might listen to me, he has in the past, though not always as much as I'd hoped. Hi, Jay. Thanks for the kind as always comment on my page that I never got around to replying to. (Hangs head in shame.) :(John Z (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My sig

OK, it was painful but I did it :-) How's it now? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 06:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey TT! Good to hear from you. The signature is much better and it looks cool as well :-) Thanks for acting how you have in this matter - it speaks a thousand words. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

See

See User_talk:Rlevse#ArbCom_Clerk_Trainee. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Time coord

See clerk noticeboard about time coordination. Respond there okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Um...

I don't want to get anyone in any trouble here, but I thought ArbCom directed that any pro-pedophilia stuff should be directed to ArbCom, privately, and only THEY would handle it. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I don't want to see you get in trouble :) SirFozzie (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Sir Fozzie, this looks really bad to me, leaving it to arbcom is exactly the only thing that needs to happen. I know you have previously expressed your dissastisfaction of the arbcom only ruling but this is a bad way to express that. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't one of those cases that needs arbcom intervention. They have said that pro-pedophilia things should go through them. but this isn't as simple as that. There is some POV pushing, but not as bad as previous users that have gone to arbcom. My proposal for a community ban is based on the fact that Jovin has basically done nothing but revert other users and in discussion, he's turned the project into a battle ground. I personally think he's only here to get into a fight - that's why I didn't involve arbcom. There are of course a couple of other users here that I'm concerned about solely for POV pushing, but I'll send them through arbcom privately. Hope that helps explain. Oh, and sorry SirFozzie, my internet was playing up whilst I was chatting to you so I've had to exit IRC. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Question at A/N

As the last commenter, there is a question at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Duration. -- SEWilco (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)