Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:29, 2 December 2008

User:Mixwell/scrolling

Thank-you so much Ryan. I hope it doesn't sound wierd, but being able to do this and reach people he knew kinda makes me feel close to him. And I know he'd want me to try and do this. He lived so far away from us and now he's gone forever. Did I do this right? Jeffssister (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)jeffssister

Archive

Editor amok

Recently you have taken an interest in allowing for a fair representation of an LDS author named Chris Heimerdinger. An editor named Ronz has taken it upon himself to delete a large part of the content of these articles in a manner that seems prejudiced against the faith of the subject represented. Certainly Misplaced Pages does not wish to have a reputation that is influenced by religious prejudice. Ronz's tirade in requesting sourced material seems innocent on the surface, but has gotten to the point of using this as excuse to potentially delete full articles (like Passage to Zarahemla) as well as trim to the point that the article really offers little interesting information. And it seems this is entirely for fear that parties, including the subject himself, are promoting rather than treating the subject in an encyclopedic manner. He seems to have gone much beyond whatever authority is offered to editors in this matter. This author, a movie associated with him, as well as other featured articles related to his career, are being unduly cut and slashed with apparent prejudice. The discussion page on the subject of Passage to Zarahemla goes over these issues with more detail. I have read many articles on Misplaced Pages, including an article recently on a British character actor named Kenneth Cope, that offers much interesting information without any references at all. The spirit of Misplaced Pages, it would seem, is to offer more info than can be found in other resources. Many people have gone out of their way to offer legitimate resource info to justify certain items in the these articles, only to have such postings "undone" by Ronz. From your other edits you appeared to have the ability to take a neutral approach to this matter, disallowing promoters as well as detractors. Please involve yourself again to return such articles back to a balance that is not so unduly weighted toward detractors. Georgia.

Thanks for the co-nom!

		The Mizu onna sango15 Barnstar
		Thank you to all who participated in my RFA- regardless of whether you supported or opposed, all feedback is important to me. I look forward to proving in the coming months that the trust placed in me by the community is not misplaced. —Mizu onna sango15

RfA thanks

		The RfA Barnstar
		Ryan Postlethwaite, I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with 112 supports, 4 opposes and 5 neutrals. A special mention goes out to Stwalkerster and Pedro for nominating me, thanks a lot for having trust in me! In response to the neutrals, I will try to double check articles that have been tagged for speedy deletion before I CSD them and will start off slowly with the drama boards of ANI and AN to ensure that I get used to them. In response to the oppose !votes on my RfA, I will check that any images I use meet the non-free content criteria and will attempt to handle any disputes or queries as well as I can. If you need my help at all, feel free to simply ask at my talk page and I'll see if I can help. Once again, thank you for your participation, and have a great day! :) The Helpful One 22:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

design by neurolysis | to add this barnstar to your awards page, simply copy and paste {{subst:User:Neurolysis/THOBS}} and remove this bottom text | if you don't like thankspam, please accept my sincere apologies

Cratship

I see from the twitchily obsessive editcount check I just did, that I've hit 200 edits at WP:CHU. It made me wonder what you think of me since the tortuous soul-rending you had to go through at my RfB.

My take is that I've been a bit quiet of late, due to some very bad luck healthwise, but I think I'm acquitting myself OK. I've weighed in heavily with namechanges and am a regular at BN. I've not touched Bots yet and have found RfA to be eerily quiet. Very few noms, mostly closing when I'm offwiki (Americans maybe?). But I've been trying at WT:RFA and through some carefully selected noms to influence the way RfA participants view candidates. Not sure if I'm succeeding there yet, but I'll keep plugging away.

Hope you're OK. --Dweller (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom case

Ryan, maybe I'm a bit confused here. (It wouldn't be the first time!) The evidence page that you linked to suggests that FT2 thought it would be OK to entertain consideration of this case. Maybe he didn't, and I'm confused. If so I'll gladly withdraw my statement.

Personally I think that cases brought in such an egregiously out-of-process (not to mention patently unfair) manner shouldn't even be presented to the community; nothing can come of it other than divisiveness and rancor. I know that arbcom isn't a law court but the right to be confronted by one's accuser is a basic social principle, not just a legal one.

Again, if you can confirm that FT2 did not endorse presentation of this evidence I'll gladly purge my comment. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The FT2 comment came from a previous request for arbitration filed against SA - it wasn't made in private or anything. It's somewhere onwiki in the RFArb archive. If you want, I can take a look for it but it could honestly be anywhere in the archives. The only people that know about this request is me, Rlevse, Coren and I think Daniel now. None of the arbitrators knew about it, and we were merely filing it because the user in question (who we don't even know) feared retribution. It's a legitimate point when you think about it, but in hindsight it may have been best for the user to email the arbitration committee directly. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. I know you meant well, and I can see the point about harassment. But a case instigated by anonymous email -- when the person isn't even known to the arbitrators -- should not be brought before the community. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've actually removed the case and I'll tell the user to contact the arbitrators privately or submit it under their own username, I think that's for the best in retrospect. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Your WT:RfA question

I think I answered your question, but I did want to add a personal note... I didn't take your question as offensive in any way. I don't know how you would vote if I were to run, but I will take it as a positive that you at least see me in the category of somebody who might run. (Although, I know that category can be either a positive view---he's a quality candidate; or a negative view---he's a power hungry SOB.) I choose to view your question as stemming from the former rather than the later. Hope it's a proper assessment... but any ways, no offense was taken.---Balloonman 06:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your honest answer. I hope that from my response you will see why I asked now (because I wanted an honest answer, I couldn't really tell you the reason beforehand) and I definitely wasn't trying to score points over you. Hope you're well anyway, Ryan Postlethwaite 08:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

mfd

Ryan - I know we've often not seen eye to eye - but I at least respect you're unafraid of bold closes. - suggest this is utterly unnecessary, and perhaps you're lakeland good sense might prevail. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention - clearly a candidate for a snow closure. It was going to be an overwhelming consensus to keep the page, so it's in the best interests to close the mfd down and let people get back to more important things. Hope you're well JC. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus arb case

See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#Refactoring_other_users_comments_on_arbitration_talk_pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments on voting page

Ryan, if you are going to post an extended accusation in your vote, then I believe an equal-length rebuttal is valid. If you believe that my response should be moved, then the entire discussion (your original comment plus my response) should be moved to talk and linked from your vote. ATren (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Spread your shiny futtocks - here comes the beer

Have an unyielding beer on me. Let the amber nectar flow all day and night. Let it run down the mountains and through the caverns and across the rich lawns to swamp the streets. Let it rain beer. Let the heavens open and shine forth beer. Let it all be beer. Wonderful beer. And let it be as deep as the heart of a lion. This is an acknowledgment of your participation in the RfA of: SilkTork *. 19:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Um...me

No, I'm not coming out of retirement, but I did post a statement on the talk page of Cool Hand Luke's ArbCom voting page. --Coredesat (talk) 08:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Friendly suggestion

Hi Ryan. I'm sure you're aware that the factual basis for your oppose vote for Cool Hand Luke has been demonstrated to be incorrect, or at least greatly exaggerated. Let me be clear that I have no doubt that you believed what you wrote and that you had no ill intentions whatsoever in making your vote and statements. I don't mean to pressure you to change your vote; you are certainly entitled to keep your opposition to CHL on whatever basis you deem fit. But several people, myself included, are concerned that your asserted reasons for opposing have been relied upon by later voters. I'm sure you wouldn't want them to oppose solely on the basis of a mistaken understanding of the facts. Might I suggest a course of action? Contact the voters who explicitly declared that their opposition was based on your asserted facts, let them know that the facts you supplied that they relied on were in error, and invite them neutrally to reexamine the candidate in light of the known facts (even if the end result is that they remain in opposition). I think this would help to correct the problem without crossing the line into improper canvassing; especially coming from you, it would be clear that the intent is not to sway voters to the support side, but simply to help undo an inadvertent well-poisoning. What do you think? alanyst 14:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If I may interject, I think it'd be best if we all drop it now that Coredesat has made his statement. Coredesat has made it clear that he doesn't wish to be the source of drama, and I think this would extend the drama. CHL may have lost a few votes, but out of respect for Coredesat (who should be commended for coming out of retirement to clear the air) I we should just let it die. ATren (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I respect that position, and taking no further action may very well be a constructive (or at least non-destructive) approach. My reason for my suggestion is that if I were the one who made the erroneous statements that others relied upon, I would want to rectify the error as much as I could do myself. Assuming Ryan feels the same, my intention was to offer for his consideration a possible way to do so with minimal drama. If I were a voter who opposed based on Ryan's original statement, I'd appreciate being alerted that some of the facts in the statement had been debunked, so I could revisit my vote with a better understanding of the candidate, and I wouldn't regard a neutral invitation to do so from the original oppose voter to be at all drama-inflaming but rather an act of integrity and courtesy. This isn't about putting Ryan through the wringer; he can't be blamed for stating his genuine concerns based on his perception of the situation at the time. It's about mitigating the effects of a good-faith mistake. But I've said my piece, and I leave it to Ryan to do as he considers best. alanyst 15:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the facts that I relied on are the same as they ever were. A quick run down of what I believe happened (just for a sanity check) - Eric gave got into a dispute with Coredesat and then went to find his details which he posted on WR. These details were not correct, and CHL then went and stated the correct details, which he found by looking at a link from coredesats wikia userpage to his own website. CHL's intentions were to remove the possibility of harassment to the random person Eric had posted to, but it still had the effect of outing Coredesat on Wikimedia projects, where he hadn't revealed his identity. Does that sound like the correct version of events? If so, that's what I believed happened in the first place - I'm thinking of adding this version to the talk page, with a bold link from my oppose to it so people can take a look. The only thing that I regret is the link I posted - I thought all could see it, but apparently it's in a members only area of the site so non-members can't see it. Now, the thing is - some people disagree about how serious this is - I think it's fairly serious, despite even coredesat playing it down. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I really do mean to withdraw from this for the sake of drama avoidance. But since you (Ryan) and I apparently don't share the same view of which parts of your statement were misleading, I just want to be specific about which facts I mean:

• "He outed Coredesat..." - while there's some truth under a strict interpretation of outing as "connecting any dots about a person that they did not explicitly connect themselves" (a position I can respect even if not wholly agree with), saying unconditionally and exclusively that CHL outed Coredesat conveys a very misleading impression of maliciousness to voters unacquainted with the facts. Coredesat puts the word outing in scare quotes in his statement, attributes the action primarily to a different WR user, and says, "I never once tried to keep my identity a secret", important nuances that "He outed Coredesat" unfortunately neglects.
• "...leading to Coredesat leaving." - I originally thought this statement was entirely untrue, but Coredesat's statement does provide a bit of basis for this. But it's still misleading, since Coredesat says the brouhaha was "the icing on the cake" and not even the primary reason for his leaving. You made it sound like CHL targeted Coredesat on WR and drove him away from Misplaced Pages. I'm sure you didn't mean to leave this impression, but from most of the "per Ryan" oppose votes it seems that it's the impression they gleaned from your statement.

The other facts in the opposing statement, about CHL's involvement with Misplaced Pages Review, are not disputed. OK, now I'm really outta here. alanyst 16:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ryan I hope you do me the courtesy of answering the reply I sent you about this. I have raised questions that you have not yet satisfactorily answered. Thank you for your kind attention to my request. ++Lar: t/c 19:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Just some banter

Ryan, you wrote "Severe lack of judgement by opposing the majority of his fellow candidates." on a certain oppose. I don't want to bring up the name, because its not about that. However, I found this extremely hillarious. Why? Seeing as how there are over 30 people, and only 7 spots, most people oppose for the majority of the candidates listed. Why would you support more than 7 candidates to begin with? Why would that even matter? If you think someone is unqualified, you have the right to think that. Mathematically, your comment seems to be rather ridiculous in spirit. At least say "I don't think your actions are sportsmanlike", because thats what you seem to suggest. However, your phrasing seems to defy logic. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)