This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Reply 2 MFD 3 Note 4 Protection of User talk:Jéské Couriano 5 Tagging 6 WP/AN 7 Policies 8 AN/I 9 clearing the air... 10 My RFA has closed 11 Tagging by Calton - No resolution 12 Regarding SqueakBox and the Pro-pedophile activism article 13 Hello, good sir 14 WG 15 Med case 16 Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008. 17 Template:Temporary userpage 18 May you adopt me? 19 Mediation 19.1 Neutrality? 20 Rollback 21 NAS notice 22 Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008. 23 Page protection at WP:WORDS 24 Dispute resolution 25 Fred Phelps 26 What is a lot of vandalism? 27 Do I have your approval? 28 Comment on ANI 29 Rollback. 30 Are you back? Mediation? 31 comment on term 32 FYI: Calton is back . . . and back at it 33 Pedophile topic mentorship: Recent edits 34 Hi there! 35 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Jack Merridew 36 best I start a new section 37 Mentorship 38 Rollback 39 Monovithya Kem 40 Re Bold at UAA 41 Email 42 Peter Yarrow 43 Vandalism 44 RfB 44.1 Completely unrelated 44.2 Your comment 45 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Coppertwig 46 accountcreator 47 E-mail 48 Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008. 49 child sexual abuse RFC 50 Your unfounded, unsupported oppose of Risker 51 ANI 52 IRC password 53 Graphic "big schlong" on your user page 54 Would it be in order? 55 Betacommand 56 Rfb participation thanks 57 Early closure 58 Questions on disruption and reliable sources. 59 Dead horses 60 Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008. 61 That which must not be named :) 62 Arb clerk 63 Can i has IRC plz? 64 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to genetics 65 RFA Thanks 66 Splitting WP:AN 67 Am I a troll now 68 The team at work 69 Congrats 70 Malleus 71 Account 72 Burma wheel war 73 We have a live one!! 74 My recent RfA 75 The Great Hunger 76 Thanks 77 Thanks! 78 My RfA 79 Mentorship Nonsense 80 "Smell the lawyer's office" 81 Bart Versieck 82 Red Rain in Kerala 83 PR block 84 My sig 85 See 86 Time coord 87 Um... 88 Question at A/N 89 IRC 90 RfA thank you spam 91 Sorry, but you were MIA 92 SSSIs 93 Hey, could you do me a quick favour? 94 Thanks 95 Edward Carson Mediation 96 PR 97 Block of Justinm1978 98 Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008. 99 Great Hunger 100 Improvements in referencing 101 Jack_Merridew (talk · contribs) 102 Hey 103 Mediation Committee 104 Co-nomination 105 Wikimedia Board 106 Great Hunger 107 No Discussion 108 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Welcoming_committee#Hey 109 Ziggy Stardust 110 Signpost updated for June 2, 2008. 111 Query 112 Help me, French presidential election, 2007 113 Removed reference to a killed UN worker? 114 Thanks 115 Notifying others of mediation request 116 Email 117 Courtesy Notification regarding my recall criteria 118 Great Irish Famine 119 Signpost updated for June 9, 2008. 120 Hello!

Reply

I have been focusing on mainspace. I have been already been told that. I plan to have at least 2500+ quality mainspace edits out of 10,000+ edits before trying the RFA. Thanks anyway!--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 01:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

MFD

Want to MFD this useless junk again? Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits? I'll full support deletion. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

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: [1].

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This page still needs your attention. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 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^{Chalk Talk} 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^{Chalk Talk} 21:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection of User talk:Jéské Couriano

Dude. He doesn't want it. [2]. 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 ^{(v^_^v X of Swords)} 00:25, 9 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)

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.^{(talk • contribs)} 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.^{(talk • contribs)} 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 Wikipedia 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 ^T/_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 ^T 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)

WG

Hi, I've posted some new proposals at the WG wiki and would appreciate everyone's input.[3] 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?[4] --Elonka 03:59, 15 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)

Hi Ryan: See my full response to date at User talk:IZAK#Request for mediation not accepted and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bstone vs IZAK. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.

Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

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 (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Temporary userpage

Just a courtesy note, regarding the above template which you nominated for deletion, that the discussion regarding that template has concluded. The result was delete. Anthøny 13:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

May you adopt me?

Please adopt me. --Sean (talk) 20:39, 19 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2. Therefore, at a minimum, the motions at Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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)

Neutrality?

While neither accepting nor rejecting formal mediation, because User Bstone (talk · contribs) should not be granted those choices first before trying other measues such as at MedCab (he had tentativley agreed to that as well), and with the RfC being closed only on Bstone's hearsay without any input from me as to implementation, it must be noted that in looking over some of your past interactions, you have previously had serious detailed contact with User:Bstone such as at Wikipedia talk:Ombudsmen Committee as recently as January 2008, which makes it imposssible for you to be neutral in any mediation effort/s involving Bstone. You should never have made the offer to mediate with Bstone as a party because of this and you should please recuse yourself accordingly. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

I don't know if you remember me or not, but you revoked my rollback a while ago. (long time sort of) I re-applied for it mainly because I found a rollback test (if that's what you want to call it, it's a basic read through to get to know the rollback function and where to use it and where not to use it). I know exactly what to do with rollback and what not to do and think that I'm ready for the tool. I know that what happened last time was my fault and I won't be doing that again. If you want to question me about rollback do's and don'ts, please ask away.(sort of like RfA) I do feel like I'm ready for the tool and feel like it would be a great help for me in my daily editing. (I edit music related articles, and recent changes so...yeah, lot's of vandalism) Thanks Undeath (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

NAS notice

Hi Ryan, I thought you'd want to know about Wikipedia:New admin school/Granting and revoking rollback. I just moved it out of my userspace and into the school. Acalamari 21:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Uck, look at all the policy and problems this rollback thing has caused. *Cremepuff222* 01:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.

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 (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Page protection at WP:WORDS

Should be safe to undo the page protection now; see discussion here. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a few more days, I know you're busy, and if you haven't had a chance to reply, I'll ask another admin to do it. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I have ported over the first section of the WG "Dealing with disputes" page, here to the EN wiki, at Wikipedia:New admin school/Dispute resolution. If you have a chance, could you please take a look before I make it more public? Thanks, --Elonka 16:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Fred Phelps

You denied this at RFP, but I protected before you denied the request. To be honest, all I see is IP vandalism on the history. Sure, its not exactly a torrent, but its almost all there is. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

3 or 4 edits a day is not a reason to block out all IP's from an article - this can easily be dealt with by the RC patrollers. We don't want to alienate possible new users who can't edit the page constructively. I think you should unprotect. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

3 or 4 edits a day isn't much. But I re-iterate—one must also the number of *positive* IP contributions to the article and weigh them against the damage the same collection of editors are relentlessly inflicting on the content. In this case, I also think a look at the subject of the article could give fair estimation to the answer of the previous. But, I suppose we could discuss the traditional fire and flames war between the approaches of "IPs contribute a good majority of our content, we should only protect in extremities" and "So many IPs vandalise, RC can't cover everything, we should protect fairly leniently" for hours. I am supposing that I am merely of the latter approach; and you prefer the former. As I noted as RFP, I am not strongly opposing your decision, nor at the same time supporting my own rigorously—if you feel the need to remove the protection, I will not mind in the slightest. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What is a lot of vandalism?

You turned down my request for semi protection on Egyptian pyramids saying "there's not much vandalism considering how high profile the topic is" - that was at 08:33, 30 April 2008, about four hours after the request. The page was being further vandalized almost as you typed - heres the vandalism just since last night:

• 07:59, 30 April 2008 124.184.9.155 (2 edits)
• 08:44, 30 April 2008 58.107.208.121
• 08:50, 30 April 2008 121.45.32.199 (5 edits)
• 08:58, 30 April 2008 217.44.99.75
• 09:02, 30 April 2008 58.179.206.160 (3 edits)
• 14:22, 30 April 2008 64.90.250.244

The page history shows hundreds of incidents of vandalism, and almost all of it from anonymous IP's. Semi-protection would have been instant relief for any editors or bots working to remove vandalism on that page. If you will not reconsider I would at least appreciate a better explanation than "there's not much" - which just isn't true, again it was practically being vandalized as you wrote those words. You have to go back three pages just to get to the first of the month. Is that because there's so many wonderful contributions being added? Of course not, the whole list is IP vandalism and reverts, with a few nuggets here and there of real encyclopedic edits. Is there a way for me to request a second opinion? As I believe my requests absolutely fills the bill set by WP:PROT and especially WP:ROUGH Brando130 (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the second opinion I have posted a request for one on WP:ANI, I hope you don't take offense. Brando130 (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Do I have your approval?

I wouldn't bother you with this, but User:Jaakobou seems to think he has some authority in the project and I should contact you in order to be properly aprised of it. Do I have your approval to tell him to only crap in the litter-tray? After months of harrassment of people on their Talk-Pages, and a block of him, he's still doing exactly the same thing. It's particularily disturbing because this time round since his hatred and accusations are not restricted to "crack-head Arabs" but seems aimed at practicing followers of Judaism, and the testimony of victims of a pogrom (the 1929 Hebron massacre). PR^talk 16:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Note:

• PalestineRemembered has just recently started editing again and I've already noticed a few obvious issues and suggested he revert one of them and redefine his forced mentorship.
• To remind, one of the reasons PR was assigned forced mentorship was improper behavior around me, more specifically, repeatedly accusing me of being a war criminal. There was also an issue of repeatedly (50+ times) making false accusations regarding my (quickly retracted) second block on Wikipedia, an event he not only did not participate on and misread into, but clearly didn't care for my explanations either.
  • Here are "a few" diffs about this 50+ issue:
    • "Jaakobou has harassed other users and admins on talk and even been blocked for it" - LINK. (added 18:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC))
    • "Based on my previous warnings with the user (e.c. sample) ... I recommend a short block of the user, as his mentor." [5] (added 20:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC))
• I believe this is a good point in time to fully clarify to him the results of the last Arbcom and to redefine his forced mentorship.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Extra note: PalestineRmemebered was repeatedly noted, warned and blocked "01:18, 29 October 2007 GRBerry (requested by mentor)" by mentors and admins for his repetitive (mis)citation of old issues.
  • Here are "a few" diffs about this 50+ issue:
    • "Jaakobou has harassed other users and admins on talk and even been blocked for it" - LINK. (added 18:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC))
    • "Based on my previous warnings with the user (e.c. sample) ... I recommend a short block of the user, as his mentor." [6] (added 20:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC))
• Going over some of the notes he'd received from past mentors, I noticed he was also told by previous mentor Kendrick that "remove the tags [is] usually frowned upon" but one of his first edits returning to edit was a removal of such a tag without taking an active part in the discussions.

So apparently, there's already two issues addressed by previous mentors that he's returned to ignore. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC) clarify. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC) added proper linkage. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment on ANI

Hi there. Regarding your comment on ANI about my semiprotection of Egyptian pyramids, please note that I do, in fact, research and consider admin actions before I push the buttons. I don't just go "okay!" and do the admin magic thing when someone makes a request such as this one. In this case, I saw quite a lot of vandalism on what I'm sure is a popular article, and felt that it would be worth at least giving it a break from the need to do the many reverts on it. My apologies for not commenting here beforehand; I'll keep that in mind for future issues like this; I took this as a request for a second opinion, and never actually thought of checking back with you.

Please do recognize that other admins likely do, in fact, do their due diligence (such as it is here) before making a decision such as this one. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback.

I don't know if you got my previous message, but I cannot find it in your archives. I was wondering if I could file to get rollback rights again. I know that you revoked them last time and I believe that I am ready for the tool. I know the mistake I made, and I've read the rollback dos and don'ts multiple times since then. Please let me know your decision when you can. Thanks. Undeath (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Undead warrior. Appologies for the late response, I've been away for a few weeks. I've granted you the rollback tool again, I'm sure you've learnt from your mistakes but please only use it for reverting vandalism this time and not in content disputes. Best regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 12:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you back? Mediation?

Hi, Ryan. Just curious if you are back home and editing again. I am ever to desiring to continue formal mediation between IZAK and I. Thanks so much. Bstone (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As you might know WP:TOV is my baby. I created it and am actively involved in it. A few days ago IZAK inserted himself into it, despite being explicitly told that him and i should avoid each other. He has been actively posting on the talk page and has even been accused by another of being uncivil[7].

I have completely avoided posting in those sections in which IZAK is, but now he has gone :ahead and even made changes to the project :page[8]. Notice his edit summary- it's just a bit over the top. The crux of this issue is IZAK and I were told to avoid each other. I have done just that over the past few weeks. IZAK agreed to do just that [9] but clearly has not. There are so many project on Wikipedia in which his efforts put into. He agreed to work on things other than what I am working on. Yet he has come into WP:TOV, taken a decidedly contrary view point of my own and created a situation in which I do fear to further be involved in this project without major conflict. Bstone (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted him, he was quite simply out of line with that edit. I'll keep my eye out, and make it clear that he should stop interacting with you. Should he not stop, he will be blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

He's still posting on the talk page and have essentially taken over the conversation. Sigh. Bstone (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

comment on term

Hi Ryan Based on the discussion I am having with a user on al-Ghazzali, the user claims that the word "Wahabi" is derogatory and can get a person banned. But I would like to point out that the word is very mainstream in academia: [10] and corresponds to WP:NPOV. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Calton is back . . . and back at it

See: User_talk:Calton#Stop_placing_userpages_in_CAT:TEMP_that_aren.27t_indef_blocked.21 where I gave Calton what amounts to level 4im warning.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought Calton would have got the message by now that his tagging was disruptive. Thanks for warning him - I'll certainly block him myself if I see him doing it again, that's if you don't get there first. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[11] How nice. Tiptoety ^talk 22:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, I was hoping that Calton would respect this given the warning doug gave him, but his flippancy is just increasing. I fear that a block will be the only thing that will make him see sense. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Pedophile topic mentorship: Recent edits

Welcome back, Ryan, I hope your vacation went well.

I was hoping to discuss with you this edit at Wikipedia:Pedophile topic mentorship. It appears to me that the discussion was about the meta-issue of ArbCom taking these cases in secret at all, rather than about the specific case we were told should be discussed with ArbCom. Because of that, I don't see the applicability of the reasoning cited in your edit summary. Are there terms under which you feel that discussion could continue? --SSBohio 17:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going to inquire about this as well. If precedent is followed, ArbCom is unlikely to respond to inquiries of this nature, and has yet to even once fully publicly discuss blocks related to editing of pedophila-related articles. Furthermore, Ssbohio does have a point in saying that the discussion being called for on Wikipedia:Pedophile topic mentorship is not one regarding a specific case - this is more of an analysis of the general practice adopted by ArbCom as of late to discuss issues such as this in secret, deal out blocks without much explanation, and not to inform the general public of all the information and deliberation involved in the such cases. Wikipedia is supposed to be a transparent entity, and members of the community are supposed to be able to observe how admins function and what reasoning is used to instill blocks. This is why some editors are worried about the way things are going right now and want to engage in open discussion. ~ Homologeo (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

These are all interesting points, and I believe there could be some middle ground for the arbitrators to discuss these kinds of blocks without bringing the project into disrepute. As it happens, I think the VPs block was the correct course of action - those userboxes were bad, very bad in fact and if I'd have noticed it, I'd have taken the same action as DMC. It might be an idea to spark up a discussion at WT:ARBCOM about how these blocks could be handled (but please don't mention any specifics). A simple post explaining each of these kind of blocks would probably be helpful so other users know what kind of behaviour will be seen as unacceptable by ArbCom. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I would expect that VP's userboxes were meant to dance right up to the line and not cross it. He appears to have a personality that entices him to boundary pushing, especially in areas he's passionate about otherwise. Unfortunately, his stance is unpopular, so the slack someone on the other side of the issue would get isn't available to him. This isn't a bad thing per se. Can one ever be too anti-pedophile?

I do worry about the effect of such an asymmetrical policy on our neutrality, whether real or perceived. My primary passion is writing a comprehensive encyclopedia from a neutral viewpoint. I've certainly felt driven to more active measures than making userboxes, but I've resisted. You and I very much agree about bringing transparency to this process (see my comments to Morven). I feel that the topic mentorship page is a good place for the discussion, as this involves no universal policy of ArbCom, but instead a policy that fairly exclusively impacts this topic area and its editors. --SSBohio 14:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there!

Hi Ryan, I hope you had a good vacation. :) It's nice to see you active again here, and I hope you had a good time. I wanted to ask you, what did you think of Wikipedia:New admin school/Granting and revoking rollback? I had to change the wording halfway through due to a change in the userrights interface. I mentioned this page to you a few weeks ago, but I wasn't sure if you'd seen it or not. If anything, welcome back! :) Acalamari 16:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Jack Merridew

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Jack_Merridew - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't contact you about this, I was hoping to catch you on IRC. I'll be interested to hear your thoughts and I'm more than happy to discuss your concerns either here or privately. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Discuss what exactly? My opinion had been most consistent on this matter for the past three years. You did not even bother notifying me of this. What am I supposed to make out of this?

Will I be accused of disruption if I file an RFAR against him? Although the conclusion of the last one was rather solid: [12]. Will I be accused of disruption for getting stalked by him? He has developed many very cunning ways over the years...

In no way will I make any effort whatsoever to avoid him. In no way will I agree on anything concerning Davenbelle. I will not be inconvenienced the slightest bit for Davenbelle anymore. If there is anyone that will be inconvenienced will be Davenbelle. In addition the entire community will need to baby sit his current account (Jack Merridew) and all possible sockpuppets. Community seeking to unblock him should do so knowing this. Enough is enough.

-- Cat ^chi? 23:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Not avoiding. Know the old wive's tale about cats and babies? (sigh) Shenme (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not the one accused of stalking someone for three years. Stop treating me like a criminal. I am required to notify all non-indef blocked parties in any arbitration case or clarification. -- Cat ^chi? 13:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

best I start a new section

I believe it appropriate that I refrain from interacting with the WC on the AN and RFAR pages (or just above) absent a bit of clarity from you or Moreschi. I would, of course, be glad to comment. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 05:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship

I would definitely appreciate a summary of where my use of the tools has caused issues or otherwise raised eyebrows -- or tempers. If I see the pattern you are seeing, I would definitely appreciate better alternative suggestions to how I have handled certain instances. Thanks. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for getting back to me on that Tony. As I said - none of the things are major, just with a little improvement it could make you a better admin. I'll keep a check on your talk page and lend a hand wherever I can. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony is an excellent admin. You offer no examples whatsoever - let him be. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello Ryan. I think we met a while ago. But may I have rollback? I lost it before becuase nobody told me it shouldn't be used for good faith edits and non-vandalism until I missused it. I promise this time I will be more responsible, as I will carefully look at a diff before reverting it. If I'm not sure, I will leave it alone. But if it's obvious vandalism, such as page blanking, inappropriate editing such as adding cuss words, then that's when I'll use rollback. I'm not even going to use it often since I will sometimes use popups. So may I?--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 01:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Monovithya Kem

Thanks for your note. I'm not sure about whether Monovithya Kem should be restored. Could you scan the newspaper article mentioned in the article (about the subject of the article getting her father freed from jail in Cambodia, I think) and decide whether that's enough to build an article on? --Eastmain (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Re Bold at UAA

No problem, lately I've been trying to alert many reporters that some of their concerns may not fit with/fall under WP:U. It got to the point where I felt WP:BOLD and confident enough to just remove non-blatant offenses on sight. I'll continue to exhibit the care and judgment you acknowledged. Thank you for that! Cheers man. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Email

I've just sent you an email.--Urban Rose 02:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter Yarrow

I think this diff: [13] and other Celona postings on the Yarrow page may provide you with comparative texts. The outside posts JkP is concerned about do seem similar, and they are exactly what Celona threatened on the Yarrow talk page, but I fear what we have here is coincidence without proof of connection.David in DC (talk) 04:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've asked John about the edits so hopefully I'll get a response soon. Thanks for the comment. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you see he said it wasn't him? Aleta ^Sing 17:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I did. I'm still thinking it through, but not sure what else we can really do. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I just wanted you to see this since your sig was involved in this. It shouldn't be a problem, I just wanted to notify you of this. Cheers.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 05:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, and IP did the same thing to me with your sig. I hope there's no truth to it. Cheers, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Have no fear guys - this was just a troll who I blocked copying my block notice onto your page. He's created a few socks now and I've had to block quite a few of them. Just don't listen to him and deny recognition. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

RfB

Hi, Ryan. I left a question to vanTucky under his oppose that relates to you as well. If it is not too difficult, can you drop by and let me know, either their, on my talk page, or via e-mail, whatever you prefer, as to whether my understanding of your oppose was correct? Thanks. And if it means anything, you can take from this RfB that your opinion is very highly respected here in wiki (and not just by me) -- Avi (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course I can Avi, I'll certainly offer my comments on the RfB at sometime tonight - I'm just slightly busy in RL at the minute, but I'll get on with it ASAP. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, though, as a statestician, I feel duty bound to point out that any positive number is greater than zero :-P. In all seriousness, thank you for clarifying the issue, my friend. -- Avi (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Completely unrelated

Did you ever receive my e-mail that related to a mentorship situation? -- Avi (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I must admit, I've been a little lapse with checking my emails for the past week so I haven't even looked. Appologies - I'll log into hotmail and take a look, expect a reply later on tonight. Thanks for the prod. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

Quoting from one of the questions posed: Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. That is the basis for my oppose. My experience may indeed be rare or even unique, but that is the beauty of votes; if it is, it won't make any difference. Blackworm (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Coppertwig

Please be aware that future edit warring on this page will be dealt with by blocks. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wth are you telling me? I'm trying my best to help with the situation. Dorftrottel (ask) 23:54, May 8, 2008

I'm telling everyone that made a revert because protection isn't an option for an RfA so we have to use blocks instead. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Does it look like I was edit warring? Dorftrottel (warn) 00:03, May 9, 2008

I'd call that a revert, so yes it does look like you were edit warring. Especially as there were multiple reverts before you stepped in. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, in that case thank you very much. Have a nice day. See you around. Tada. Dorftrottel (complain) 00:24, May 9, 2008

accountcreator

Ta. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

<<PING>> -- Avi (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Whih means you have e-mail at your Wiki-linked account. -- Avi (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping avi - I'll take a look. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery