Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:41, 9 December 2007

Archive

Thanks

...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations.

Thankspam

User:Neranei/adminthanks

edit michael guillen page

11/15/07 Hello. I am trying to edit my page on this site. My name is Michael Guillen. I went on the site today and made changes and then you reversed them -- calling them vandalism. Most of the content under my name is untrue, and I would like to fix it. What do I need to do?

I really appreciate the article protection

Thank you much, Ryan, for protecting the article. I really appreciate your timely response. TimidGuy (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This protection of Transcendental Meditation has worked well. Naturezak, the new editor who made changes against consensus and deleted material sourced to peer-reviewed journals without explanation, has been making an excellent contribution to the discussions. We have quickly arrived at a number of points of consensus, and are making definite progress toward improving the article. Still, there are matters to resolve. Also, a couple editors with strong feelings have been completely absent from the discussion, and it's not clear what their intent is once the protection is lifted. Might be a good idea to extend protection a while so that we can continue this progress. Thanks much. TimidGuy 16:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

PPA Mediation

I know I was rather slow in responding to the last round of comments on the MedCom wiki, but I am getting concerned that the mediation is grinding to a halt. I was hoping you might be able to jolt it in the right direction again, and get us mediating again. I know that formal mediation is a slow process, and that it can take time, we all have to deal with that, but at this rate, we won't finish mediating before users start dieing of old age. I would appreciate it if you could give the mediation a little tug in the right direction again. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Martijn. I'll certainly get to it over the next couple of days. I've managed to go through 4 hard drives this week on my laptop, so you could say I'm having a few problems actually getting online - I'm having to travel to computer rooms at present. I've got a few ideas for the mediation, so I'll present them on the MedCom wiki soon. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 15:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yipes, that's ungood. Laptops are Evil, I tell you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You got mail. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/208.31.142.31

Hi. In this edit, you removed my report, but did not state a reason. Might I ask your reason? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah of course, I should have been a little bit more specific. The final warning was from 25 November and the IP had only one warning today. Because IP's can switch, it was most probably a different user vandalising this time, so we should eally have the full set o 4 warnings within 24 hours before blocking IP's. Hope that helps explain. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Replying

Hi Ryan,

When you reply on a talk page, or anything such as a help desk, how do you make your reply indented?

The Helpful One 19:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Never Mind! Figured it Out! The Helpful One 19:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

Durova

Hey, I just supported you for your candidacy for Arbitration, but I saw some stuff about Durova. I skimmed the ArbCom case, but you didn't come up. What is that whole thing about? I'm confident in my support; just curious. J-ſtan_Contribs 04:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I'll explain - I was extremely disapointed with what Durova did, I went to her talk page and expressed my disapointment to her, but then, because of the nasty person that I am, I realised that she made a mistake and unlike a lot of users here, didn't want to see her get executed for one mistake so shock horror, on her RfC, I suggested she might be forgiven(!!!!!) - yup, disgraceful I know - but I guess the protesters won in the end, and durova's no longer an admin. I also proposed on the workshop page of the RfArb that Durva should be thanked for her work as an admin, because before this one incident, she was an excellent administrator and no-one would have thought something like this would happen. It seems to have cost me, but I'm happy because I did the right thing. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't speak for everybody, but I think it would be wrong to fault you for that. Honest, earnest opinions are a valuable commodity. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I could be considered part of "the other side" of the issue. I don't want to go over everything again but let me highlight what some people perceived your role in the whole mess was. Some people took away from both the RfC and your thanking that there was a group of people who totally missed (or worse, dis-missed) their concerns. Durova without question did a lot of good as an admin. However, the one incident she did make a mistake on instantly called into question the other blocks and work she has made. Thanking her at that point in time further raised issues of dismissing the forest for the trees.

Let me explain this further.

Quite a few of us, myself included, thought her evidence before !!'s block was rock solid, extensive, and damning and when she acted she had the full backing of the rest of the admin staff and arbcom based on what she states on ANI when she mades a block. When the evidence did come out regarding !!'s block, it all fell apart. The evidence, for a lack of a better term, was laughable even taken in the worst possible light. If this is what she had for a sock, what did she have for the rest of the people she blocked? The fact that she has reversed quite a few blocks lately started questions along the lines of "Why are we blocking good editors who on the surface has done no wrong."

If nothing else happened (no evidence outing, no secret mailing lists being revealed, etc), your comments would probably not have been such a big deal. However, the evidence did come out, their were mailing lists revealed, and a lot of editors who blindly trusted her did not look good. Your and Jossi's comments on the RfC provided a lighting rod for those who felt their concerns were being dismissed by a select group of admins trying to calm the masses down and deflect criticism from Durova. They were focusing on the action part of the mistake and not the global view of the events leading up to and the implications of the mistake were. The aftermath of the evidence and secret list outing along with the behavior of others did not look good after all was said and done.

Honestly, it boiled down to the timing of your statements "sucking". If you made your comments at different times, it might not have been a big deal. But with that said, I hope you take a recent American politician word's to heart in the future: "Trust, but verify" if an event like this comes up again. Trust your fellow admin, but verify that admin actually did their homework and got an A+ on it. spryde | talk 20:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You see, this is a major misconception - I didn't support what Durova did, when the block first happened, I went to her talk page and made my feelings very clear that I thought they way she went around her block wrong. But then the floodgates opened and this turned into something much bigger than what it should have been. My major point here is that there's admins here that have done far worse and yet they are still administrators - I still don't agree that one mistake should have meant Durova resigned and feel the actions against her were completely disproportionate. A slap on the wrist with a firm understanding that this was not to happen was all that was required here, not an attempt by many to drive her off the project. What ocurred in this case was extremely disproportionate when compared to other incidents of administrators getting it wrong, and shows an extremely sad inconsistency that Misplaced Pages has as a project at the moment. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I know you did not support what Durova did, however the comments were taken that way. I am not sure if I totally agree with you on the inconsistency. I see new users and old being driven off by the actions of each other. I do see inconsistency in the way people are treated. Should that be? I use to think not. I am not so sure lately. spryde | talk 20:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(indent) Hmm - was Durova even warned about her actions, or did it just jump to ArbCom and RfC? If not, I completely get where you're coming from, though I would probably have also sided with Jossi on this one. Everyone makes mistakes. If this was a repeat offense, then yeah, I could understand ArbComming it. J-ſtan_Contribs 22:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, never mind.

Sorry to see you withdraw from the ArbCom elections. Never mind, don't worry about it :) Qst 12:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Argh! I was just getting ready to vote support for you! Double-argh!! Dreadstar † 15:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

As per Qst and Dreadstar really. I'm actually quite disappointed by the loss of another great candidate at the ArbCom elections this month. The opposition didn't really seem to have much care for your other edits and valid reason for becoming a nominee, past the Durova incident. Something I have no idea about. I just only hope next time it comes round, you'll be the front runner. Because that's probably the best thing for this project. — Rudget _{contributions} 21:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

For speaking out on judging someone by a single mistake, became the single mistake by which you were judged, is ironic indeed. Best wishes going forward, you do great work here. --Stephen 00:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am very sad both about the opposition and that you withdrew because of it. I hope this doesn't set an example for people becoming afraid to make well-intended suggestions like yours for fear that they get unreasonably punished for them. — Sebastian 01:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all, your words are much appreciated - I guess it just wasn't to be. I look forward to seeing you all around the wiki in the future, all four of you are users I highly respect. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Count me in on the people who thought it was a shame you had to withdraw. I respect your decision though, and I do hope you'll run again next year. I look forward to supporting you for the second time. :) Acalamari 22:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Good luck

Hi there! Thanks for your wishing me good luck. I wish you the best future too. Cheers, (^_^) --- D@rk 16:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess I just have bad luck...

It appears that a certain 202.156.66.110 that you may or may not remember as a user who tried to frame you for blocking me for no reason. Now you may also remember that a certain "coalition" of editors have wanted me blocked for some time now and have just now let up on their "assault" which is really the only reason why I have recently begun editing again and I'm truly not in the mood for another editor to be added to that list just when I've begun to actually enjoy editing again. I've come to you mainly because you've dealt with him before to some extent and I also ask you to watch him and deter him from tacking on more offensive to his already extensive warning/block record before I end up getting myself blocked which I may be close to doing. Thank you. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 22:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've warned him for harassment, if he continues, then he'll be blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Very much appreciated. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 00:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

:-(

I'm sorry to see you withdrew from the Arbcom election. Please don't be discouraged and remember that your work and presence here is always much appreciated. Maybe better luck next year if you intend to run again. Meanwhile, happy editing! See you around! :-) Best regards, Húsönd 06:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Block

you removed the block, and it seems I can edit, but I have a message saying it should still be there. can you clarify pls. edward (buckner) (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This editor was reblocked after you unblocked, the removal of the indefblocked template seems rather pointless considering he is blocked right now. If he is re-unblocked, feel free to revert to his comment again. — Save_Us_229 11:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

We aren't sure yet if he is to remain blocked, we don't put that template on until we're sure that the user in question is going to remain blocked. This boils down to a legal threat, and when he withdraws it fully he will be allowed to edit again. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Username change

Hi cat. Now that it has been brought to the community attention that there is another user who's name is WhiteCat who predates your name change, I believe that your username is confusingly similar to this one, and may run afoul of WP:U. At very least, please consider implementing the ideas at WP:U#Username_disambiguation. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, is that enough? -- Cat 12:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That looks good to me, it's just an unfortunate situation when two editors in good standing have very similar user names. I think the disambig clears the problem now. Thanks for your co-operation White Cat. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a similar disambig on the other users page with his consent. It may appear like a COI if I made the request myself. -- Cat 15:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah of course white cat, I'll have a little chat to him in a little while, just got to get back to uni now - good idea. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

Just a happy Birthday message to you, Ryan Postlethwaite, from the Misplaced Pages Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

 Idontknow610  (WANNA TALK??)

A happy birthday from me as well. :) Acalamari 19:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Enjoy yourself... but not too much ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Happy Birthday buddy! I can't send you a Misplaced Pages pint so I'll just have to owe you to will meet! Pedro :  Chat  21:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy birthday Ryan! GlassCobra 21:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy birthday, man. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

God, I'm finding myself here more and more often. Happy birthday! :) — Rudget _speak.work 21:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto ol' fruit, hope you have a hangover tomorrow ;) 21:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Woot! Happy birthday, Poss! :) Sarah 18:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou guys! Unfortunatley last night was a little bit too much for me, and I've spent today in bed feeling sorry for myself! Thank god for paracetemol! Ryan Postlethwaite 18:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Messed up at Saeb Erekat

I think you've messed up with your contribution to the TalkPage at this article. I brought it to your attention because you're supposed to be mentoring me, and I thought I was being bullied - you appear to have ignored my complaint completely. I'd done a careful analysis of the facts of the case, and I don't believe our WP article is written on the basis of "the facts as appear in reliable sources". To whit, Erekat may have been guilty of exaggeration (though it's difficult to be sure) but it's neither realistic nor referenced to claim he lied. Meanwhile, many of his political opponents provided versions which are virtually outright lies (at least according to what their own side claimed later). If the purpose of writing articles is to slander people, it's these others we'd be slating.

Seperately, the RS's don't state what is being alleged, that this business is notable (the RS's barely mention it). Nor that it is controversial. Why did you arrive suggesting a compromise but BLP-breaching version by which we say it was controversial and Erekat's words were "widely refuted as being false"?

Even with your support, the consensus as I've tabulated it appears to be 5 editors who don't think we should say that Erekat is a lier, one that says he is a lier and yourself saying that his words were "controversial".

Meanwhile, I see similar reference and consensus-trashing edit-wars going on between some of the same actors in many other places - is it reasonable to look to administrators to stamp out this kind of ownership? Particularily when there are serious BLP issues at stake. Saeb Erekat appears to have been instrumental (if not crucial) to getting agreement at Annapolis only a day or two ago - surely WP should give him a fair crack of the whip - and not treat him as some kind of serial falsifier. PR 21:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC) PS - I've contributed a comment here here - do you see any problem with what I've stated? PR 22:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

University of Missouri

The term referred to the entire University of Missouri System officially from 1963 till now and is used for the University of Missouri-Columbia public relations matters but not on official matters. The common usage is not overwhelmingly referring to a single school but there is a push on Misplaced Pages to enforce the school's Alumni organization politics on Misplaced Pages namespace. I would like to open up the page naming to a wider view of experienced Misplaced Pages editors instead of the microcosm the page currently has. Does that mean Mediation committee? Alatari (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

At the stage you're currently at, I think discussion should continue on Talk:University of Missouri System - there looks like there's room to attempt to come to an amicable consensus there. If this fails, then I'd suggest opening a request for comment, where experienced users are able to comment on the discussion. Then as a last step, you could request mediation - as I said, I don't think it's quite in need of that just yet. Hope that helps, Ryan Postlethwaite 00:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ping

Thanks for the notice. I posted on the talk page that I am unwilling to block at the moment due to some apparently quite credible sockpuppet concerns. However, as I will be busy for the rest of the night, I have left a note asking for other admins to review this on WP:AN/I#Blue5864. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Block

Thanks, Ryan. Max Sem almost beat you to it... (leaving a message on the talk page is sufficient to stop the bot) Rich Farmbrough, 18:40 9 December 2007 (GMT).

Yeah I've just found out about the talk page message, sorry for making the block. Feel free to unblock when you're ready. I'm just going to roll all the edits back unless you can think of a simpler method? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)