Misplaced Pages

User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Abd (talk | contribs) at 04:21, 16 July 2008 (Ryan, that was a phenomenally inaccurate MfD nomination: sp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:21, 16 July 2008 by Abd (talk | contribs) (Ryan, that was a phenomenally inaccurate MfD nomination: sp)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

User:Cream/scrolling

Archive

Dates:


Answered you

RlevseTalk01:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK entry

Ryan, while I can understand where you're coming from to an extent, reverting any mention of WR from today's DYK just smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I've reverted for the moment but c'mon - this went through the usual process already and overriding that is just not the thing to do here - Alison 23:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


Ryan, my friend - the fact that DS has already left messages for the editors involved (Neil, Peter Symonds, and whoever else) does not negate your personal responsibility to explain your actions to these respected editors. I urge you to do so, in a thoughtful, non-blaming way. Please consider it. Risker (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've had a chat with both of them - I certainly didn't remove the article to upset those two, they were both acting in good faith. Hopefully they will understand my reasoning, even if they don't agree (as a lot of people don't seem to do at this point in time, but I can't turn back the clock). Ryan Postlethwaite 02:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
No that's fine; thanks for the note. However, I just updated the template from the Next Update, so I wasn't really involved with the selection. Once it's at T:TDYK and the Next Update, it goes through some rigorous checking by the DYK admin regulars (BorgQueen (talk · contribs), Gatoclass (talk · contribs), and other non-admins etc), so I had little hesitation about putting it on the template. It was a valid DYK, correct length, with verifiable sources, so those were probably the only issues that were looked for. Nevertheless, I see where you're coming from, and (had I been awake the duration of that DYK slot) would have had no objections. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle

I've restored Twinkle for the reasons outlined in the edit summary. On a closely related note, in the future, I'd appreciate it if you would contact me immediately, and preferably on my user talk page, about any concerns you're harbouring against me (sic!). Apart from potential instances of necessary and useful feedback, criticism or reminders, I will never forget that you vigorously defended subpar editing. user:Everyme 09:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Right.... Ryan Postlethwaite 13:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I mean it. If you have concerns, say it immediately, or never. user:Everyme 14:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, that edit summary doesn't look good for the future I've got to say - You seem slightly flippant about why Twinkle was removed in the first place. That said, you're more than entitled to readd it, just be a little more restrained with it this time. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

RFAR rejects

Newest ones go on top, not bottom. I fixed it for you. — RlevseTalk23:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, that makes sense - thanks. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem. — RlevseTalk23:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

??? Although unlikely to get accepted, with 12 active arbitrators this removal seems premature. Per policy and custom we normally wait 10 days before removing if a case does not get 4 net votes. As well as giving all arbs a chance to vote, this gives the involved users a chance to read our comments and members of the community a chance to see it and step in and help. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh I do apologise - I thought they were removed 24 hours after the fourth net vote to reject the case. I was getting mixed up with cases being accepted - I'll revert myself. Sorry about that Flo. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been email pinged!

I have replied sir : )

Oh and just so you know, it already weighed against me on my last one. History might repeat itself! Wisdom89 (T / ) 02:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Mizu

If you want to oppose her, ok, but I'm perplexed by your statement you want her to reconsider withdrawing. With all the pile ons, she'll never pass now. — RlevseTalk10:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Soliciting some feedback

Crossposting this to Wisdom's page as well.
Would you mind taking a look at how I judge admin candidates, and offering some feedback? I disagreed with you about Mizu, and I know you seem to have different standards, but I respect your opinion, and would like to pick your brain on the subject. Thanks, S. Dean Jameson 13:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi Ryan, just letting you know that I've sent you an E-mail. :) Best wishes. Acalamari 22:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've already read it - I'm going to have to think about this one..... Ryan Postlethwaite 22:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Earthquakes

I am having some trouble with this portal. I see you are great at promoting featured portals, and I need help performing the "show new selections" option on the page. Could you please help? --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 22:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I can give it a go :-) What exactly do you mean by "show new sections"? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
See Portal:Earth sciences. --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 23:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, you already have it in - it's the "purge" template you have. But the problem is, to show new content, you need to encorporate {{Random portal component}} into your portal. I haven't used the template before, but I can find someone to help if you'd like me to? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please. --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 13:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I've squeezed it in, but I still need to have the show new selections option. --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 13:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

missive from the broo ha ha avoidance network!

G'day ryan - in much the same spirit as you helped me out the other day by encouraging me not to break rules that would inevitably end up biting me, I thought I'd swing by here and try and explain why I think a short comment from you at Lar's talk page would go a long way... maybe an apology if you feel it appropriate (I do).

You see, when you say "I'd like someone with access to sensitive information not to be posting to such a site and discussing things with people that are solely there to harass members of our project" there's rather ugly implication that you somehow don't trust those specific people with the access to sensitive information - an implication that you feel they may breach the trust the community has placed in them, and share information which will be used to harm both this project, and volunteers who contribute.

If you don't intend to imply that, then it would be great for you to acknowledge that that is a reasonable interpretation of your words, and that it wasn't one you intended. If you simply don't trust Lar or Alison (for example) - then you need to be extra careful to either stick rigorously to your commitment to not comment on these issues, or to avoid running into problems with assuming good faith etc. - I think your recent comments at Lar's talk page were slightly over the line - no biggie at all in my book (yup - this pot is not afraid to pass comment on the kettle!!) - but a calm comment at this stage from you could go a long way... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I see one of my talk page stalkers has turned up here before I did (Hi, PM!). I think you might want to pop by my talk page, Ryan. ++Lar: t/c 01:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Quite, and thank you, PM. Ryan, I'd rather you'd just come out with "I don't trust you with sensitive information, Alison", and get it out in the open, rather than making these snide insinuations, as you have been doing over this past few days - Alison 01:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

good on yer....

that was a very thoughtful post at Lar's page - I reckon! - now what's all this about mouldy pharaohs? - Privatemusings (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you pm - I've implied things over the past few days that I never intended to imply. I should have done an English degree - it might have taught me a thing or two! About the Pharaohs - for my masters thesis, I'm looking at the fungus present on liver, rib and ear samples from three egyptian mummies - It's really interesting actually, just a bit crap having write 20,000 words :-S Ryan Postlethwaite 01:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm seconding this, although I'd never spell it "yer." I found it brave of you to say "99.9whatever percent" and hope that the resulting discussion will not make you shy away from any such statement in the future. If we're more honest about our respective biases, it's a good thing. - brenneman 02:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Well, hopefully this is the last one I'll need, but thanks for the offer. --Jenny 18:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally I think you're right on the money in the Misplaced Pages Review matter. By sheer coincidence I had entered into evidence today in an arbitration case the existence of an attack forum against SlimVirgin there and checkusers are among those who post there (and I would add the same caveats that you would about not believing they're up to anything bad). I just think it's wrong, it encourages the impression that such forums are acceptable. --Jenny 18:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

RE:Message on my page

Sent. America69 (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As have I replied. America69 (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. America69 (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I am sending you another e-mail. America69 (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

The Special Barnstar
For an issue we had and to say I'm sorry, I award you this barnstar! America69 (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Respectful disagreement

Hi, I hope we can agree to disagree about the Shoemaker's Holiday RFA. When I learned he was going up again I did ask him to make a fuller disclosure because the very special circumstances of his case weren't widely known within the community. Durova 01:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Durova - I think that would be the best scenario. There were wider considerations that the committee had to make which weren't anything to do with his actual editing and I think those are best left in private. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Ryan, unless some very big surprise has been hidden from me all these months, I think I know exactly what those considerations are. They were misapplied with an exactitude that would be comical if this were fiction. Makes me want to reread Kafka and Joseph Heller. Best wishes, Durova 01:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
What, exactly, are these secret considerations? Because, you know, they never bothered to tell me. I will gladly forward you every communication I've had with arbcom if you like. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Shoemaker has given me permission to discuss this; the only backchannel concerns either of us are aware of concerning him relate to his health. As the editor who submitted the bulk of the Alkivar evidence, I am at liberty to forward you a copy for comparison if you wish to review why I consider Shoemaker's situation dramatically different from that one. Respectfully, Durova 02:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the remedy is vague on this point of whether he is permitted to request his access be restored directly from the Community and open to either interpretation: see my comment at Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Voidable RFA. But, the fact that many read it as precluding RfA is a huge obstacle to Shoemaker's Holiday successfully passing one and as such needs to be cleared up with the Arbitration Committee. It is I guess but another unsatisfactory element to a very unsatisfactory decision. WjBscribe 02:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I am completely unwilling to voluntarily put a group that decided that my confession of health issues and agreement to voluntarily desysop should be oversighted, (and that I should instead be dragged through several months of hell that put me under so much stress that it made my health problems far worse, and forced me to drop out of the second semester of university for this year) in power over me again. I'd rather never become an admin again than that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's how the precedents stack up:

  • For showing consistently poor judgment in performing administrative actions, Alkivar's (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) administrative privileges are revoked. He may apply to have them reinstated by appeal to the Committee, but not through the usual means. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Alkivar#Alkivar_desysopped

No statement to specifically enable RFA; RFA is presumed. It is only with regard to other channels that the Committee specifies. Durova 02:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a very persuasive argument. Though the decisions whether the availability of the "usual means" is expressly stated need to be considered too, the fact that the Committee voiced no objection to MONGO's RfA despite not having expressly authorised it is a very significant factor. The problem is that I don't think that helps you. Even if I were to agree with you - at the moment I do find the argument that RfA is permitted more persuasive - and made a statement to that effect, I don't think that will prevent those who think otherwise opposing. Even if every bureaucrat was of the same mind, I suspect a lot of commentators will prefer to form their own opinion and look to ArbCom for guidance. I think it would be wise to have them clarify this (as a general point) for future reference. WjBscribe 02:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.

The Misplaced Pages Signpost
The Misplaced Pages Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 4, Issue 28 7 July 2008 About the Signpost

Template:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-s

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

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 (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK Notice

Thanks for the DYK notice re:Bartholomew Gilbert (I think it's my 61st) and all your other miscellaneous work on the project. - House of Scandal (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Favor

Ryan, sorry I got pissed at AN/I, but could you do me a favor? Shot info did this edit, which removed the responses which I claim as mine. It takes forever for me to edit such a large page as AN/I, but would you mind giving Shot info a warning or something, and restoring the edits? They were my edits, even though Davkal wrote them, and that is quite alright per WP:BAN. Thanks (: ——Martin Ψ Φ—— 02:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Martin, thanks for the note. The problem with the edit you cite is that we don't allow comments posted on behalf of banned users. This edit was clearly by Davkal, as an IP, and you can't take responsibility for it. If it was an article edit, fair enough, but it wasn't. Can I suggest, that if you want to use the edit, you re-word it so it's clear that you, not Davkal, made the statement. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


Yes, we do: "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them." ——Martin Ψ Φ—— 02:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Posting in discussion on behalf of banned editors is proxying for banned editors, we don't do that. The quote you post is for article edits. Please make the comment yourself, in your own words. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing there that makes a distinction between article and discussion edits. Where does it say that? ——Martin Ψ Φ—— 02:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the verification that the edits he made are true? This means that you must have sources to back up his claims, which will generally only be available for articles. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
There is another answer. Shot info (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Discussion pages are for expression of opinion, and I have verified that the posts represent my opinion, and I have independent reasons for expressing it. ——Martin Ψ Φ—— 02:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Davkal is banned, his edits aren't welcomed here. If express the same opinion, do so in your own words. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I just -I don't like to say won- but my argument was good about the verifiability. Now you changed the argument. I don't see where you're coming from here, relative to policy. ——Martin Ψ Φ—— 02:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The Caledonia Mission

I have The Caledonia Mission on my watchlist (for some forgotten reason) and noticed you recently edited it. Don't you think it deserves a notability prompt at least? Share your thoughts. Danke. - 02:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I only fixed up the markup and put a stub tag on, but yeah, there is very questionable notability. I'd suggest taking it to AfD unless you can find sources to show notability. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The revert

Thank you. :) Acalamari 17:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What is your source of information? Too soon to be a coincidence.

Hello, Ryan. I see that you blocked User:Pascal Tesson sucks. What is the source of your information? I notified Pascal of the name and you blocked it very soon afterwards. Did Pascal Tesson contact you? Chergles (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hawayo Takata

Since you have a mop and keys, feel like addressing Aaxxll's repeated removal of all citations, references, and footnotes from the Hawayo Takata article? - House of Scandal (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Time management

In the time it took you to leave me that offensively condescending post on my talk page, you could easily have found that the user in question is being completely disruptive and needs a preventative, not punative block. Hope this helps --Badger Drink (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please take it to WP:AN if you disagree with the result from AIV. AIV isn't the place to contest block lengths. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not even contesting a block length! Jesus mother and Mary! There was no block, hence there was no block length to dispute. --Badger Drink (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Upon third thought, it really does seem you're out to lunch on this one. The edits I reverted, with the exception of the AIV edit, were reverting of the clear-and-simple vandalism edits of a user who's left messages such as this on my talk page and the talk page of others. The AIV page was blank when I reverted, so there was no actual lost "progress". Cheers and cider, --Badger Drink (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yay! No more silly stuff!

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for reverting trolling on my talk page :) Shapiros10 My work 15:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Giano & the AN

Hello Ryan, things over at the administrators noticeboard now seem to be getting out of hand and people are starting to fall out. (Same usual story of civilised debates on Misplaced Pages). :S I was just wondering why we are having all this talk of policy changing just to suit one, uncivil, disruptive Wikipedian? Me and Xenocidic and a few others are asking the simple question...look at his immense list of blocks...why is he still being allowed to edit? We don't have to resort to changing a whole policy to suit one person, surely? Lradrama 16:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, there's a big divide about how to handle Giano. Some believe he should be held to the same standards as everyone else, and if he was, he'd have been banned a long time ago. He's got a lot of friends here, which means that they support him in situations when he's completely out of order. As I said in the AN thread, anyone else would have been blocked for that comment, but we still have people arguing that we're baiting him and he's done nothing wrong. I understand until's comments - we shouldn't be kidding outselves that we have a policy on civility that is equally enforced on everyone when one user is above and beyond that policy - it's a little wrong imo. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, that is wrong, as you have said, and as many others have said too. This should not be happening. I bet Giano is loving all this squabbling he has caused. If we have to treat Giano differently than everyone else, treat him much more leniently than everyone else, then I think it is a dire state of affairs. And many others agree. Whatever next... :'-( Lradrama 16:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User Damiens.rf

Ryan, I support the removal of Damiens.rf's twinkle; there is a pattern with him and a few other editors of running rampant through articles that contain images and attempting to remove the images and intimidate regular editors of those pages. They really have no solid ground to stand on right now with a practically non-existent and highly disputed NFCC policy. Cbsite (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)



Ryan, that was a phenomenally inaccurate MfD nomination

You wrote, at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Abd/Allemandtando‎, Abd has created this page as an evidence file against User:Allemandtando. There isn't any evidence there as yet, but he encourages users to post to it should/when Allemantando screw up. This isn't fair on Allemantando having such a page documenting his every move in someone elses userspace, with little final goal (it's certainly not a draft RfC or anything like that). We've previously deleted laundry list of grievances, and this page is just that. It's an assumption of bad faith towards Allemantando by expecting him to do something wrong. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You said six things there that weren't based on the page, nor on anything else that I know of, except possibly an assumption of bad faith. I'd have expected better from you.

(1) Created as an evidence file against User:Allemandtando.

I explained, in Talk, why the page was created:

Why does this file exist? It is not my intention to debate this, however a brief statement of reason is important. It is reasonably suspected, by myself and others, that this user has been disruptive. Is that true? Or is it merely that the user has taken on a difficult task, intrinsically controversial, the removal of unsourced or improperly sourced material from Misplaced Pages? Without a balanced look at both aspects, any judgment regarding the propriety of the user's behavior may be contaminated by opinion about inclusionism vs. deletionism, which should be irrelevant to user behavior, except as a theorized cause for that behavior, which may be explanatory but not normally relevant to policy. What is the actual behavior? This could, so to speak, either convict or exonerate. Or even both, i.e, convict for some behaviors, and exonerate for others.

In other words, it's not a page against Allemandtando. But there have been lots of incidents involving him, in the very short time he has been active. What actually happened? I don't know. So I decided to compile an index, so to speak.

(2) he encourages users to post to it should/when Allemantando screw up

No. Haven't. Didn't plan to, either, though, if it should come to the filing of an RfC, I'd open it up at that time. The only publicity for this file has been Allemandtando's blinking notice about it on his Talk page, an AN/I report that he filed to try to get it deleted or me sanctioned for allegedly stalking him, and now the MfD, filed by you, with the notice on my Talk page where lots of people will see it. There was a reference in what I'd written about people correcting errors, filling in what was missing, and that wasn't biased in any direction. If, for example, there is some selection bias due to my personal limitations, someone else could balance it by noting other facts, but that wasn't a solicitation, merely noting what could happen. Allemandtando just claimed, today, that someone emailed him about the page, that's how he noticed it. I'd asked him before how he came to notice it, but he hadn't answered. It wasn't noised about, at all, except by someone unknown who watches my contributions, by him -- and now you.

(3) documenting his every move

No, *Misplaced Pages* documents his every move. Look, I haven't written anything in that page except for the frame. So how could you claim to know what it would be? I can't even figure out how I'd actually do what you claimed I was doing. Ah! I've got it. Of course! So simple: Special:Contributions/Allemandtando. Wow! That was easy! Done! (My point: "documenting his every move" would be totally pointless, it's already done, it's part of the software.)

(4) with little final goal (it's certainly not a draft RfC or anything like that).

That's right. It's not a draft RfC, which is something which makes oonclusions from evidence. It was simply a page to put evidence on. Final goal? To look at it and see. To see what? What is there! And to say what that is, before putting it together and looking at it, would be pretty silly, wouldn't it? I've stated that there is suspicion of disruptive behavior. That's a fact. But I would personally attempt to set that suspicion aside when compiling evidence, it can tend to distort the process.

(5) We've previously deleted laundry list of grievances, and this page is just that.

How can you have a laundry list of grievances with no grievances? This page is almost a blank page. There is a little discussion in Talk, but not "grievance." The page wasn't intended for grievances, period. It was intended for summary record of editor actions. Take a look at User:Abd/GoRight for an example of what it might look like. That's a page which largely exonerated GoRight (he made mistakes, but in a context where he didn't stand out as having the worst behavior). But you won't find the "exoneration" argument on that page. It's an evidence page, and exoneration is a conclusion. And the evidence was compiled before I came to the conclusion about his behavior.

(6) It's an assumption of bad faith towards Allemantando by expecting him to do something wrong.

Given that the expectation is nonexistent, is not expressed in the page, and that the intention was to compile past behavior, not to make this a place to collect ongoing examples, that was pure projection. There is something very odd about Allemandtando, Ryan. Do you know something you haven't revealed?

In any case, your nomination in that AfD contained, in just a few words, six major errors, totally distorting what the page was and its stated purpose. That's pretty high density! What caused you to go so far astray? --Abd (talk) 04:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)