Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wisdom89 (talk | contribs) at 20:10, 6 May 2008 (→Re Bold at UAA: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ryan Postlethwaite is away on vacation and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archive

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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.

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. 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 but clearly has not. There are so many project on Misplaced Pages 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)

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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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." (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 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." (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 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 17:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC) clarify. Jaakobou 17:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC) added proper linkage. Jaakobou 20:08, 30 April 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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: 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. 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)

How nice. Tiptoety 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Jack Merridew

You might be interested in Misplaced Pages: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: . 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 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 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)

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 / )} 20:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)