Misplaced Pages

Pwned

Thanks for the tip, though someone beat you to it.  ;) -01:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, at least we're on top of things ;-) Good report by the way - happy editing! Ryan Postlethwaite 01:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh damn son!

Oh man, beat you to the punch with WarthogDemon on the UAA page information! What what!!! Naw, I'm just teasing man...hope all's well, and I think you said you were graduating soon; so I hope that went well, and see you around man! Jmlk17 01:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hehe - you're just too quick! Degree went crap - but I can still do the Masters I wanted to do so I don't really care! It's just going to mean I'll have to cut back on wiki next year :-S. Thanks for the note. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Opinion on a template

Hi Ryan, I don't have much experience with discussion re: templates. I've come across {{AIV}} a couple of times. It's an example of rubbing salt in the wounds of users that are about to get blocked (to paraphrase you from Pedro's recent RfA). The user who created it is on vacation until June 30, so I haven't discussed it with him. I imagine there are editors who like using this template and find it useful. Perhaps a TfD? Thanks in advance, Flyguy649_contribs 03:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And.... Listed for TfD! Ryan Postlethwaite 11:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Flyguy649_contribs 11:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Not an insinuation at all,. actually...

Having seen The Sunshine Man's answers, I actually think it's pretty unequivocal that he had no idea what he was talking about. Wouldn't it be far better for a user who wants to be an admin to learn policy on their own through example and reading things like XfDs, policies, and guidelines instead of guessing, getting a yes/no, and then getting a correct answer they can then regurgitate on an RFA so they can "prove" they know what it means to be an admin? You may see it as a tool; I see it a crutch and an excuse not to become more conversant with policy on one's own. MSJapan 12:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You will see a link to my admin coachee page here - User:Ryan_Postlethwaite/Admin_coaching/Cremepuff222/Tasks, what I do is let him create his own thoughts and idea's, but guide him to important area's that he should know as an administrator. He writes a different essay each week, on a core issue such as WP:N or WP:BLP - I don't tell him what to write, I just tell him the area to do the essay on. Wouldn't you agree that this may help a user look at depth into key area's of wikipedia without me holding his hand? You go back to TSM having no idea what he is talking about, I disagree, he knows how this place works - he has just been a little misguided in a few area's - that's where an admin coach can help pick up on mistakes ealier than a full blown RfA would, it simply prepares users for adminship better. Some users can pick it up themselves, others need guidance, but with that guidance, they can still make excellent admins in the long run. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I did go over the page you linked to quite carefully, and as a considered response, I would say I'm still mixed on the value of coaching, and here's why (bearing in mind I'm using "coachee" in general terms, but based on what I've seen thus far for TSM and Cremepuff): for the AfD listings, when there were ten votes before the coachee's vote, I honestly was unable to tell whether or not it was original reasoning or parroting of earlier votes. Original reasoning was clearer when the coachee's vote was second or third, so clearly there could be some improvement to the AfD coaching process to guarantee actual thought about policies, leading to a better indication of understanding. I mean, if 10 people say OR, and then I say OR, a third party only has my word to decide whether I thought of that on my own, or just followed the crowd.

I see a similar problem with the policy essays - you're saying "write about this policy", and the majority of the essays are simply a summary of that policy. I don't know about you, but I certainly haven't memorized WP:N, so is the coachee simply synthesizing and summarizing, especially when there are applicability missteps or omissions in the "original thought"-type sections, or does the coachee really understand the policy? I think a better way to go about this is to really put some infrastructure into this, and have some testbed AfDs to see what coachees do with a practical application of policy without a cushion of other voters.

My concern is that it does not seem possible at the moment, using this particular process, to ascertain whether the coachee is retaining (which is the ideal goal) or regurgitating (which is what it seems like from the limited examples). Obviously, we want admins who know (or can find) policies, and can apply them properly, not just admins who know the answers to the general questions that may come up on an RfA. I suppose the principle of coaching is sound, but I think the fundamental questions that I see show that there's still room for improvement in practice. MSJapan 14:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

RFA nom

Thanks and I accept, will I note the acceptance on the RfA page now or wait until nearer the time it goes live? GDonato (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Fill out your answers, then just before you transclude it, accept it - Best of luck! Ryan Postlethwaite 18:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. GDonato (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Acalamari 2

Maybe I really did want to support the user because he'll go on a deletion spree...o.0

Hehe, thanks for catching the mistake. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It gave me a little chuckle! Ryan Postlethwaite 18:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

User:VanTucky

Hi,

There is a case of incivility which I hope you can help out with. I've never reported incivility before, so I'm not sure of the process. But here is the diff.

This user has been extremely combative and rude since he hit the Controversy in parapsychology page and talk page, and the Parapsychology talk page.

Thanks! Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

User warned for incivility. You can give a warning yourself, but it's often better to let a neutral party take a look - I looked, didn't like so I warned. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I already warned him several times, just not on his talk page. Thanks for your help! (: Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Copt and User:Kemet59

Hi,

I noticed that you created the category for this report so I guess you are looking into it? I'm not one of the regular editors of Copt, but I put it on my watchlist a couple of weeks ago when there was some trouble that got reported on WP:AN/I. Looked like pretty obvious sockpuppetry to me to I figured it would be better for me to report it as an uninvolved observer. These things get so messy when one of the regular editors reports it. Do you think I need to request a checkuser? IPSOS (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to request a CheckUser just yet - it seems obvious at the minute that the accounts are the same - so we can just keep on blocking. If it gets any more serious, let me know, because we could try and request an IP check to block the underlying IP's. I'm not actually involved in the case - I just blocked one of the users and saw the suspected sock puppet tag being added later. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I will just continue to keep an eye on it, then. IPSOS (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said, if you need any advice if it get's any worse, I'm more than happy to give a neutral view :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 21:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Redoing the insult

Now User:VanTucky has made his uncivil behavior against me only, by crossing out the incivility originally leveled at both myself and Nealparr.

To me, this looks like repeating the insult, since he could have done nothing or crossed out the incivility. What's your suggestion? Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point, but there's not much we can really do about it - he struck out his original comments about an editor but not yours, it's not adding any extra incivility - just simply not removing his original comments about you. I think the best thing to do would just remain civil yourself - he's been warned - and if there's any further comments, he will be blocked (but I hope there will be nothing further). Ryan Postlethwaite 00:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

my suggestion is "Get over it, it's an internet site"

Comment

Perhaps you should spend less of your time being an online Nazi and do some work. Some of us actually have to support your less-than-keen attitude to work. We actually pay for it. So stop dicking around on wikipedia and do your college work. 91.84.51.91 00:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)