User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite/archive21

No further disruption to RfC

Ryan, please see my 18:31 post at the end of this section on Talk:RfC. Greg L (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen. Tony would be well advised to stay clear of the poll completely from this stage onwards. As I said to him and lightmouse, they aren't welcome on the poll anymore - they've disrupted it enough with their sly tactics. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, that comes close to a personal attack ("sly"). I wonder why you believe you can exceed your role by making subjective slurs. It is not necessary and damages your role as an independent party.

A repeat of my reply to your entry on my talk page: I have already explained why I believe these are false assumptions. I won't participate on the poll pages as you ask, but since the poll results are germane to the temporary injunction, and the temporary injunction is bound up with the ArbCom case in which—against my wishes—I am a party, I presume that I am free to express my views elsewhere on the injunction and the case. Otherwise, I think I'd have to be excluded from the ArbCom case: people can hardly be parties but not allowed to speak on their behalf in relation to it.

The other issue is that if I am attacked on the poll page or my views misrepresented, I now have no right of reply. Are you going to deal with that if it arises? Please let me know whether I will be protected from such comments. Tony (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Should you feel you are being attacked or misrepresented, you can tell me here and I'll remove any offending edit. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Votes

Hi Ryan,

In response to demands, I contacted people to tell them there was an injunction relevant to my delinking script. As I said before, it would be bizarre to mention the dispute but not mention the RFC that would resolve it. I did this by email and by posts on talk pages, sometimes both. You accused me of being 'sly' but the allegation is untrue and posting on talk pages is not evidence of slyness. Anyway, while there is a lot of talk about 'skew', I happen to think that the poll about the removal of a feature has an inherent skew towards votes by people that want the feature.

I think that users of my script were entitled to vote. In hindsight, this issue should have been discussed prior to the start of the poll. Nevertheless, to end the debate about this, I tell you that 12 people voted in the autoformatting poll chronologically after my email and talk page contacts. One of those people voted as 'neutral' and eleven were 'oppose'. Should you wish, you can confirm those figures by looking at voter talk pages and cross checking votes, emailing voters, etc.

If you are considering discounting these 12 and those of Tony, I strongly suggest that you:

• (a) discount vote reversals as a result of contacts from Sapphic
• (b) ask the 4? main autoformatting lobbyists a direct question about whether they contacted (email, IRC, talk page) any voters either before they voted or to 'clarify' votes.

I hope that helps us all move forward. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Still the obsession with Sapphics continued discussion. What she did was not wrong under any interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It's sad that Lightmouse seems genuinely afraid of discussion that might reveal problems with the delinkers arguments. An RFC is a solicitation of discussion, see WP:VIE, etc. Your behavior here is reprehensible and beyond the pale, I sincerely hope ArbCom doesn't take what you and Tony1 have done lightly. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Lightmouse, could you please provide me with a list of the people you contacted (I already have the number of emails that were sent). I'm not necessarily going to start discounting votes - but I need to know who was contacted and look at how much of an impact it has made. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a trivial task, lets not make extra work for no added value. The effect is 11 oppose votes and 1 neutral. If you want a list of names of those, I can give you them. You said you already had a list and the two lists will match up. If you get a name of a person that didn't vote, that will make extra work for me but won't benefit your analysis of the effect. Similarly, if you want to check that one of the voters acted without contact from me, you will have to: (a) either accept my word for it (I can't prove a negative); or (b) contact them and ask. Trying to help. Lightmouse (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, trying to make progress…

Ryan, please see my 02:09, 15 April 2009 post here on Talk:Poll. Greg L (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sapphic's obnoxious posts (March/April 2009)

Hi Ryan. I notice that you have removed the exchange Greg_L and I had with Sapphic recently. I'm not happy with that removal, and I would like to have it reinstated. There are important aspects to the debate in that exchange (not related to Sapphic's behaviour) that the wider community should be aware of (and I'm sure we can all handle a few swear words). In addition, Sapphic is currently playing a curious game in regards to the results of the date linking and formatting poll, and it is important that people who come into contact with her have a glimpse of her "style". More worrying is that the removal of her comments makes it looks like she has done nothing wrong. Why does the slate get wiped clean for her? Based on the obnoxious attitude she has shown during this debate (e.g. [1], [2], and [3]), I formally request that you instigate action against her—preferably resulting in some sort of block. Thanks for your attention to my request.  HWV258  22:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, you must have missed my post here - I've banned her from the talk page for a week. Should she post there again (or I see any other incivility from her) she'll be blocked, no questions asked. My removal was not to wipe the slate clean for her - far from it in fact - it was because I couldn't honestly be bothered looking at her ridiculous statement and I didn't want to waste other peoples time replying to it. I've taken action - she won't be doing that again. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your actions. I'm sorry, but to suggest "she won't be doing that again" is naive. She has demonstrated a clear proclivity for "doing that again" (as I've demonstrated above). Also unfair in this debacle is that you've managed to leave her initial response to my first post (the one where she starts "Please don't start in with the annoying rhetoric again..."). That is grossly unfair as it looks like she has satisfactorily answered my points (why did you delete my post starting with "I have little idea of what you're talking about..."—there was nothing worth deleting in that post.)? Please either remove Sapphic's first response, or reinstate my response. If you don't, I certainly will.  HWV258  22:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's fine as it is now. Please don't start readding or removing posts. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not fine; and I've reinstated what you should never have removed (here). Please do not remove my reasonable and calm post again. If you do, I will take further action (which, based on the lucidity and politeness of my words, you will have great trouble defending). Further, if you remove my text, questions will start to be asked about how uninvolved you are in this matter. Please don't test me on this.  HWV258  23:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"Please don't test me on this"? Please cut out the combative attitude and you might find you get a better response - One of my greatest principles is that I refuse to engage in discussion with someone who takes that kind of attitude. I'm good natured and willing to respond to reasonable enquiries with discussion before acting - I do however refuse to listen when people start making threats. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm responding to your stated course of action (or lack thereof). I made a polite and reasonable approach to you—and was summarily dismissed (by your not reinstating my reasonable post). It's not combative—merely a clear statement of the course of action I intend to take (and am quite entitled to take). I believe you have handled things quite well in this difficult debate up to now, and I'm now asking you to continue in a similar manner with this current request. Thanks.  HWV258  23:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• HWV258: Go make yourself a cup of coffee please (or whatever else puts you in a better mood). Greg L (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• I agree. Zen. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with that remedy Ryan—which I did notice this morning. Very wise. Greg L (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Admin IRC

Hi Ryan! IIRC you were the one who gave me permissions to enter the admin channel, so I'm directing the request/question to you. Do you know if I'm still registered in the channel? Today I tried to enter and couldn't, including several logout/login attempts. Is it possible to remove me from the list and then re-add, or am I doing something wrong? Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! The problem was indeed that I did not invite myself, weird because I didn't have to do it before (after the first time). Guess you learn something new every day, and I'll try to learn a few more things about IRC in general. I have been using it intermittently for many years, but never liked it and therefore never bothered to learn any commands and stuff like that. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops

I already fixed it, but I was scrolling down my watchlist and saw the page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking and went to hit Diff, but Firefox froze for half a second and then scrolled again, and resulted in me hitting Rollback, which was directly under the Diff link. I couldn't stop it before it went through. Sorry about that! RainbowOfLight ^Talk 06:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sapphic / UC_Bill / 169.229.149.174 / Wclark_xoom

• Well done! So, what led you to suspect they were alter-egos? Ohconfucius (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, well done from me too. I only wish I could get back the time I spent attempting to have a polite and rational debate with "those" maniacs. What a shambles. (And I apologise for my heavy-handed approach above—but perhaps you can see the effect that that horror-of-a-Wikipedian Sapphic had.)  HWV258  07:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you guys asked the question because I've wanted to put the evidence down on-wiki. I've broken down the evidence below to behavioral and technical;

Behavioral

• Both users have severe incivility issues (when I say severe, I mean some of the worst I've seen) and a tendency to flip out. Sapphic [4] UC Bill [5].
• UC Bill stopped editing altogether on 31 March 2009 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=UC_Bill). A day later, Sapphic comes wading into the discussion after a three week break [6].
• After being blocked, UC Bill created a new account to notify Sapphic that I was about to say that the IP edits were from Sapphic.[7] There was no reason at that stage to suggest that Sapphic was the IP editor - The UC Bill sock did it to cover tracks because of what might be found out (another typcial sock tactic).
• Both users have an intimate knowledge of DynamicDates (setting $wgUseDynamicDates = false in LocalSettings.php) and both users were pushing hard to have this implemented (it appears they were the only two users who understood this at first).

Technical

• UC Bill has been confirmed as user 169.229.149.174 which resolves to the University of California at Berkeley. UC Bill only uses the IP addresses in this range.
• CheckUser evidence shows that Sapphic only edits using a home ISP in the same city as UC Bill.
• One of the most common forms of sockpuppetry is when users use one account for work and one account for home use. They try to evade CheckUser by never having overlapping IP's or ranges - this is easy to see when you look at the individual accounts IP's - they come from the same area, but one account uses a work IP and the other uses a residential IP.

Anyway, I hope this helps explain things. If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, they both work together and are (apparently) both involved in software development. Sapphic has posted evidence of concurrent editing which refutes your one account at home / one account at work theory. Please shorten the block for Sapphic and consider a better way to deal with UC Bill (yes he made a legal threat, but let's see if we can't get past that). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The edits sapphic posted to prove they are not the same are from september and October - cu doesn't go back that far, only for the last three months. The evidence we have is clear - two users who support each others views, strong personality similarities, technical data showing likely sock activity. They're socks. --Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a stretch Ryan. As frustrating as Greg/Tony/Ohconfucius are it's a wonder I don't blow up at them as UC Bill and Sapphic have from time to time. So if I happened to be from the same IP range and actually had blown up at them I'd also be a sock of UC Bill? Again, it's no secret they know and work with eachother, so the checkuser data is utterly worthless. The behavior similarities aren't enough, I don't think, because frustration (especially for as long as this) brings out the worst in people. Your indefinite block and proclamation of sockpuppetry is also out of process, please take this to AN/I and get wider consensus before leaving this as-is. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "utterly worthless"—the checkuser data doesn't only demonstrate evidence to do with IP addresses; it also demonstrates evidence to do with the timings of edits. Greg_L has given an indication of those timings with his (I studied the 500 edits...) post below. I guess the thing that is clear to everyone is that all the available evidence has removed reasonable doubt from the powers that be at WP—hence leading to the actions that were taken.  HWV258  21:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

"Sapphic has posted evidence of concurrent editing which refutes your one account at home / one account at work theory"—unfortunately not, as you're discounting the possibility of being able to remote-connect from a work machine to a home machine, or vice versa. Anyhow, based on (some pretty extreme) behavioural issues alone, "they" are done in this forum (certainly no one who has been involved in this debacle will ever take "either" of "them" seriously again).  HWV258  22:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly I think you're a sock of Tony, but you don't see me running to RFCU to attempt to dredge up something technical to back up all the other similarities. Seriously, we could go 'round and 'round with this. The simple fact is, there's nothing odd about them editing from the same IP (or different IPs). That just leaves the behavior, which while similar, isn't enough to me to warrant the claim that one is the sock of the other. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly I wish editors would stop throwing around sockpuppet accusations; such declarations should be made in moderation and only with good cause (i.e. evidence). Even if you (Locke) do not think there is definite proof about the Sapphic–Bill connection, the CheckUser performed has clearly shown that something suspicious is going on. Saying that HWV258 is a sock of Tony without any evidence whatsover is a bad faith accusations. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought the "evidence" was implied regarding HWV258: Tony1 and he behave similarly, share seemingly identical views on these issues, and both crop up to share opinions with seeming regularity. Also see the earliest history of User talk:HWV258: here. You'll note the only contributor was Tony1 for the longest time, and he seemed to call out HWV258 by name ("Andrew") in his very first edit. So either HWV258 is at best a meatpuppet of Tony1, or at worst a sock. But this evidence is no more tenuous than the evidence used to proclaim Sapphic as a sock of UC Bill IMHO. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

To LC: you've just demonstrated all I need to know in order to confirm my suspicions about your analytical "abilities". Tony1 and I are distinct editors, and I welcome you or anyone else to start the investigation you refer to. Moving beyond the personal attack, I'll simply note that your point about "Sapphic has posted evidence of concurrent editing which refutes your one account at home / one account at work theory" remains defeated by my response above. Your more recent point of "there's nothing odd about them editing from the same IP (or different IPs)" isn't "simple", and is most definitely "odd". Why are you so keen to step in and try to defend this debacle? I would suggest that you would do well to put as much distance as possible between yourself and the horror that is this shambles created by "Sapphic". I'll close by noting the dichotomy of your decision in trying to defend the Sapphic/UC_Bill mess (faced with overwhelming evidence of misappropriate behaviour), versus your desire to denigrate Tony1 and I (with no stated evidence). Bye-bye.  HWV258  00:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

See my reply above regarding you and Tony1. As far as Sapphics evidence being "defeated", bullshit. It's not my fault checkuser is inherently flawed, she posted evidence of overlapping editing activity and has worked in good faith to fight these charges. It's been well known that UC Bill and Sapphic work together, so their attitudes being aligned is not at all surprising. I find Ryan's jumping the gun here troubling and hope he backs down. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm now specifically asking someone to do the CheckUser analysis to prove that Tony1 and myself are distinct editors. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt (here), but of course that's not enough for you. Regarding your "bullshit": you specifically stated "Sapphic has posted evidence of concurrent editing which refutes your one account at home / one account at work theory", and my reminder of the ability to remote from one computer to another is sufficient to undermine "refute". Locke, it's basic logic—please try to follow it. In regards to "It's been well known that UC Bill and Sapphic work together, so their attitudes being aligned is not at all surprising", gee, where to start. Do you align your attitudes with people in your proximity simply because you work with them? Must be an amazing place to work. There is no way known that Ryan should back down in this issue—not when faced with such overwhelming evidence of foul play. Please chase a windmill somewhere else.  HWV258  20:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Locke, with respect regard to your user page, I respond as follows:

Summary: I would rather be called names or edit warred with than have a discussions in which I had participated prove to have been with a bunch of sockpuppets. [1], [2], [3], [4]

Really, why are you defending Sapphic, (aka UC Bill)? Hasn’t anyone taught you how to play to one’s strengths and effectively play the cards you’ve been dealt??? Your coming to Ryan’s talk page to defend this individual after all these lifetime banishments have been dished out to all of his (or her) aliases is akin to charging at a 50-cal machine gun nest in your underwear: not playing to your strengths. Greg L (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Geez, I hope I'm appropriately dressed when it's my turn to charge at a 50-cal machine gun nest.  HWV258  03:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Because the accusation is false. As an aside, even if the accusation were true, the canvassing is far more troubling to me than any allegation of sockpuppetry; it's not like UC Bill made 100 socks and voted to support auto formatting... unlike Lightmouse, who apparently contacted dozens (possibly over a hundred) editors to gain additional opposition of auto formatting. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A sense of humour is usually the first thing to go when charging windmills. Interesting to compare "Because the accusation is false" with the (meek, but realistic) "...even if the accusation were true..." in the next sentence. Please see Greg_L's post ("I studied the 500 edits...") below as to why you should attempt to regain your sense of humour on this, put some distance between yourself and the sorry mess that is Sapphic/UC_Bill/et. al., and simply walk away from this dark and gruesome corner of the procedings. In regards to your "it's not like UC Bill made 100 socks and voted to support auto formatting..."—no, it's much more serious than that. The vote is one thing (and there is no evidence that any sort of emails made an real difference in the final results), however the real worry is with the influence that two weighty editors (Sapphic and UC_Bill) have had on the debate leading up to the RfC.  HWV258  21:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting post from User:Jayron32 on my talk page:

  "We cannot know for certain that two accounts are run by one person or two; but when the evidence is clear that EITHER it is one person or two people working together in such a way that they must be closely colluding to disrupt, and where other options are unlikely, then it doesn't really matter which is actually true. Both are so disruptive the merit the same blocks, and it isn't necessary to distinguish between the two situations in order to issue a block. Given that new accounts were created and showing up to "defend" the user in question, I thought that evidence enough that some chicanery was going on. I don't particularly care whether this guy was creating the new accounts himself, or whether he coerced his buddy to create the new account for the sole purpose of defending him, neither is a defendable situation. See this ArbCom Precedent which essentially established the principle... Again, thanks for your apology on the situation. For what it is worth, I am still willing to hear a reasonable explanation from both Sapphic and UC Bill which would give cause to unblock both accounts.".

  In essence, I agree - no amount of speculation on our parts, or accusations against 'the other side' will solve it, but 'Bill' or 'Sapphic' may well be able to furnish proof which gives them back the reasonable doubt. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• I studied the 500 edits from March 2009 and earlier for both UC Bill and Sapphic. Note that I had once suspected sockpupptry before in an entirely different matter and was highly convinced, based on post styles and whatnot, that a certain two editors were one in the same. But, upon looking at the timing of the edits, I backpedaled and softened my position, leaving myself a bit of an “out” as well as a pre-offer to apologize if my suspicions were proven wrong. Indeed they were. The edit timing bore out the Check-User results.

  I did the same thing for UC Bill and Sapphic; I looked at when they made their edits. It is clear as glass to me that Sapphic is an imaginary persona fabricated by UC Bill and that UC Bill is a male. It is clear as glass that he only edited from work. His edits would start up at 8:00 AM local time, quickly ramp up to 35–50 edits per each clock hour analyzed in the 500-edit series throughout the work day, and in the last hour of work, he suddenly did a burst of activity (precisely one-fifth of his 500 edits were made during this one-hour period at the end of the work day), and then he dropped off the map. He never edited in the evening hours after dinner time.

  Sapphic on the other hand, was the opposite story. Right when UC Bill’s edits dropped off the map, hers suddenly picked right up. Remember, these “two editors” supposedly live in the same area. If you could believe their user pages, they live a 21-minute commute from where Sapphic supposedly lived and UC Bill was proven to work. Sapphic’s edits conformed to the classic Wikipedian’s edits, picking up the pace right after dinner, with peak editing at 8:00–8:59 PM. I’m ignoring the effects of daylight savings time, which happened during the period I analyzed. It is irrelevant to this analysis.

  Ryan and the ‘crat he went to for the Check-User have clearly come to the correct conclusion.

  To UC Bill. Slick e-mail you (as “Sapphic”) sent me today. I won’t “out” you as to its contents, but you must think you are smarter than everyone else on this damned planet. To you, I say “no you ain’t.” I got your number now, fella. You must have been laughing your ass off as you set up a fictitious persona of Sapphic, a “yoga and pilates lesbian” to appear as a flaming bitch and serve as a lightning rod as you reveal your true self: how you naturally and really are, rather than the facade you have to wear at work. I soooo have your number. Greg L (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• P.S. Well done prank, while it lasted. You had us all fooled; and really hating Sapphic. We easily bought into the stereotype of a man-hating bitch. Given your fascination with philosophy, I suppose you justified testing our prejudices by thinking it a “social experiment” of sorts. But you are really just an over-educated, pitiful ass. I hope you stay a long way away from Wikipedia. And don’t e-mail me again as Sapphic. If you want to e-mail me, have the damned balls to e-mail me as yourself. Greg L (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• P.P.S. A final accolade for your “Sapphic prank”: As my wikifriends will attest to, I didn’t at all *hate* the “Sapphic” persona you so carefully crafted. Your ham-handed attempt to keep that up in your “Sapphic” e-mail to me (I would so like to quote just one line here) illustrates your intentions well enough. As I had written in many an e-mail to my wikifriends, I truly felt very very sorry for this “Sapphic” character, suspecting she was a likely victim of abuse by a patriarchal figure in her life. I felt sorry, not so much because she might have been victimized (that’s in the past), but because “she” had so much anger in her life (something she could do something about). I am a father with two daughters, both starting out in their married lives. I tried my best to ensure they would grow up to be happy, healthy, intelligent, productive citizens. Yes, I felt sorry for Sapphic and her unmanaged anger. But when I think about it, I think that anger—your anger—wasn’t in the slightest bit fabricated; it was most genuine. I’ve looked at the edit summaries you left as you got yourself all worked up leading into one of your meltdown-rants. Like this series (all edit summaries)

1. 21:24:01, 11 March 2009 WP:DICK
      then
2. 21:24:51, 11 March 2009, makes me so angry, stop playing your games
      then
3. 21:25:14, 11 March 2009, hope this caused an edit conflict
      then
4. 21:36:55, 11 March 2009, teach your retarted son to swim maybe   {this one associated with a post that got you/“her” blocked}

I think the mood and escalating anger there were quite genuine. I suppose I oughta feel sorry for you. But I don’t. Have a nice life. Just do it somewhere else please. Greg L (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• To all: UC Bill and I have exchanged many e-mails since my 21:06, 17 April post, above. He has also been e-mailing Ohconfucius. As he had pledged to do all along, and notwithstanding his recent experiences here, he prepared the statistical analysis of various kinds of date formatting code syntaxes currently in use on Wikipedia. He offered to e-mail it to me and Ohconfucius. Ohconfucius accepted the offer before I could get back to Bill. I assume by the time you read this post, Ohconfucius should have the data in hand. Greg L (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Just a heads up Ryan: Maybe we should let sleeping dogs lie but...I think we should perhaps add User:Thiasos and User:Bill Clark to the sock/related accounts list. I have to say that giving the stats data to Ohconfucius is a remarkable act of maturity. Sometimes I just cannot believe how worked up things have gotten with this autoformatting "discussion", on both sides. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• No, let's not let evil lie (in both senses of the word "lie"). Have a look at the talk page for User:Thiasos. There are two posts to that page: a welcome message on 3 March 2007, followed by a post from an anonymous editor on 11 October 2007. The anonymous editor posed the question: "Just wondering, are you the same person as User:Sapphic?". Is that the coincidence of all time? I guess that the phrase "Sapphic thiasos" appearing in the following context "The goal of the Sapphic thiasos is the education of young women, especially for marriage." (here) will be seen as irrelevant by those hell-bent on defending this (ever-deepening) debacle? In addition, it appears that Sapphic must have upset someone outside of WP (someone who knew what was going on in regards to multiple WP personalities) as there have been only two contributions made by Thiasos: uploading a picture, and creating a very basic user page. How could those two posts possibly lead to an allegation of Thiasos being the same user as Sapphic?  HWV258  21:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry HWV but that's too much of a conspiracy theory for me. I image the IP followed the same trail as I did: they both had the same wikime.jpg picture. However, both accounts started around the same time so I think it's more a case of multiple accounts than identity theft. (I do apologise that your user page has become the Sapphic discussion venue Ryan!) Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Don't apologise, I'm reading in the background with interest! I haven't felt a need to step in yet because someone's always said what I would have said before I've had the chance! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• I take your point.  HWV258  00:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ok. I think we’re done here on the subject of UC Bill. He ran his sockpuppetry at a record-setting level of disruption because he thinks rules are for suckers and we’re all little pawns to be played in a big World of Warcraft game. If UC Bill has any smarts at all, he will stay away from Wikipedia—in all his forms—for good. I’m quite done with this issue. He is a bugsplat on my windshield of life. Pedal to the metal. Greg L (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Block of Colonies Chris

Ryan, given Chris's recent post in his defence, the unusual circumstances we find ourselves in, and the history of the user in working hard as a wikignome, I wonder whether you will consider reducing the block to 24 hours. Tony (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, your leniency (in a good way) is to be commended. I will guarantee that CC will not let you down. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ping

You have mail. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dabomb, you should have a reply. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

thx

The nasty fall knocked me around, but now at least I can hobble. Thanks for your best wishes. The date poll: I'm trying to contact LM (unsuccessfully) to ascertain whether it would be useful to post a round-up/summary of remaining issues to the implementation of the proposed bot run. I agree with him that it needs to be narrow in scope to avoid any possible technical or political issues. Subsequent gnoming on dates (consistency, compliance with MOSNUM, etc) will be an essential and much longer set of tasks involving many editors; I suspect that many will put their hands up for this now that the issue has been brought to such prominence in the community. Cheers. Tony (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

I filed a request for mediation (Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Li_Yong_(Tang_Dynasty)). According to the instructions, the main request for mediation page would link to it automatically within about five minutes, but so far I'm not seeing it. Can you look into it? Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Strange, the bot is meant to list it but it hasn't. I've gone ahead and listed it manually - hope that helps! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

• Book reviews: Reviews of The Wikipedia Revolution
• Wikipedia by numbers: Wikipedia's coverage and conflicts quantified
• News and notes: New program officer, survey results, and more
• Dispatches: Valued pictures
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Film
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy note: my request of ArbCom about timing

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#.22Dates.22_case_and_temporary_injunction:_likely_timing.3F. Tony (talk) 09:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tony, I'll take a look in a bit. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Date linking poll implications

Can you trot over to Wikipedia talk:Linking#Remove dubious. I'm almost certain the edit should be made, but I want to check with you so I'm 100% certain. My reading of the poll on when to link dates, in which I did not participate, would lead me to believe it is no longer dubious to state dates should generally not be linked. But I will defer to your opinion, if it differs. Hiding T 10:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention - I've commented on the talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheers pal. Hiding T 19:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Dispute on Falun Gong

Hello Ryan Postlethwaite. I was wondering if you can comment on the issue here.[8]. Since editing of the article is largely between me and another involved party, I was wondering if ad admin can comment on the dispute, and whether it complies with NPOV, RS policies and the arbcom sanction [9].--PCPP (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• I promised myself to stay away from the FG pages some months ago. Silly me, walked straight into another polemic. Duh!

  I gave up FG because I found myself constantly at war with fascist devotees and other transient cranks that I felt completely squeezed by both groups. The editor referred to by PCPP is argumentative but remains polite at all times. However, another editor, Dilip rajeev, a single-purpose FG account, aggressively removes any {{NPOV}} tags (and any information he does not like) which are placed there. In general, I find the tendentious style, over-reliance on apologists-academics "studies" and attempts by FG propagandists to discredit the mainstream press as "regurgitating CCP propaganda" a bit too stressful to handle. Little has changed since Arbcom - except a very dogmatic opponent of FG has been removed. I noticed that few editors unaffiliated with FG ever edit there any more. Good luck! Ohconfucius (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple things..

One, I'm not an administrator any more (turned in the mop a couple months ago, due to health and family health issues). Two, with the low amount of admins who actually give a damn about AE, if he won't, no one will. And Three, by putting doubt in everyone's mind whether it is an operational remedy or not, you're opening the door for trouble to come in, make themselves at home, and eventually, a trip back to ArbCom to sort it all out. I'm not going to let the hard work that Alison, myself, and the other folks who burned out because they got no support in the area from above, go that easy. SirFozzie (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Date autoformatting

Ryan, I strongly disagree with your view on how to handle the results of date auto formatting. Yes the community has rejected most date links, but the way forward should not be mass bot edits when small software changes would have the exact same effect (while keeping auto formatting in place). I suggest contacting the devs and asking them to remove the links currently output unless the date is prefixed with a colon. For example, [[April 1]] [[2001]] would produce an auto formatted date, but no link. [[:April 1]] [[2001]] would produce an auto formatted date and links to April 1 and 2001. Such a software change would have the effect of immediately unlinking all dates, while maintaining the auto formatting. Further, it would provide a way for intentional date links to be made. The devs could then work to address the perceived shortcomings in the current auto formatting system without having bots/scripts performing massive syntax removal of the auto formatting that's already available. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree. A good majority of the community (I think it was 40% supported autoformatting against 55% against) opposed autoformatting - this means we should waste no more time on it and given that the majority of dates are no longer going to be linked, the current system won't work as intended. This means that we need to move quickly to remove the current autoformatting syntax (which in the case of many of the links simply means removing the square bracket). We have a good list of articles that will be broken when dynamic dates is turned off - a bot run to fix these articles up will quickly enable us to make the change and for everyone to get on with more important tasks here. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear that people don't want to complicate things further. The main impression I got from the RFC was that simplification was a key desire: for both the "opposers" (complete removal of square bracket links for autoformatting), or for a portion of "supporters" (streamlining through the currently hypothetical "son of autoformatting"). Further complexities to provide a function currently used by a minority is not desirable. Also, it would be inconsistent as most users would not seek to apply it when they do not get the benefit. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 21:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and any system that uses something more complicated than [[November 1]] [[2008]] will just be more fodder for the "we're making the syntax too complicated crowd". Ryan, again, the community rejected LINKS from dates, not the formatting. PLEASE don't confuse the syntax used with the functionality exposed by the software. The simpler and easier way forward is to ask the devs to turn off links for dates, something that should be remarkably simple to do. Please ask Brion or Werdna if you won't believe me. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well part of my point was that actually linking dates would be harder. I imagine IP and new users would find it quite difficult given that no other links would work in the same way as a date would (i.e. " [[: " links) - thus the complexity. My other point is that autoformatting would be inconsistent in its usage: most users will not automatically place the square brackets. As a non-preferenced user, I myself will not go to the minor hassle of adding the brackets, as it is of no gain to the vast majority of the readership. I can fully understand your reasoning and desire for autoformatting, but the RFC showed it has much opposition. I just don't think it is an appropriate use of our time unless we activate it for all our users. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 23:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea they didn't reject the formatting from? 55% opposed autoformatting whilst 40 % supported. To me, that shows the majority of the community don't want autoformatting. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 06:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted, but please note that numbers and concepts such as "majority" don't influence Locke_Cole's posts (hence the reason we are still going with this issue). It should be very simple now: use bots to remove square brackets (in order to remove the linking syntax), globally disable date auto-formatting/linking (in case people start to re-add the square brackets), and then let the pro-formatters (the 40%) argue amongst themselves so as to propose a system of auto-formatting that can then be put before the community for (possible) consensus. Why are we waiting so long to rid WP of the idiotic date linking/formatting system that should never have been foisted on the community in the first place?  HWV258  06:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "well spotted". Apparently WP:CON is no longer relevant. As long as your position has a majority apparently the minority opinion can simply be ignored outright.. way to go Ryan. How do you edit Wikipedia and become an admin/clerk/mediator without even the most basic understanding of how Wikipedia works? If this goes forward, please endeavor to change WP:CON, as it is very misleading right now. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

We work on consensus, not votes. There is no consensus to abandon auto formatting, there is a consensus to abandon date links, but that literally means the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_1">November 1</a> variety, not the actual markup that also supports auto formatting. Wikipedia is not a democracy. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you forgotten that there is clear consensus against any kind of linking for autoformatting purposes? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That same RFC also showed majority support for "some form of auto formatting". The first question was about dates being linked purely for auto formatting, and if we take this literally, we can remove the linking in software (thus leaving dates marked up, but not linked). We can resolve the issues the community has with the current auto formatting system, and it's win-win for everyone. Far better than ignoring such a large portion of the community that seems to place value on auto formatting.. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• (outdent). Ryan is quite familiar with WP:CONSENSUS, Locke. What we’ve got here is a galactic-level ability on your part to read whatever you want into things. Do you see anywhere on WP:CON where it specifies the vote percentage required to define what constitutes a consensus? There isn’t one. We have now had an RfC that

1. had been fairly shepherded with arbitration oversight to ensure a lack of bias,
2. had been very widely advertised to solicit a wide diversity of expert input,
3. there had been a large degree of input from the community, and
4. the views of the majority had a consistent opinion that even registered editors should see precisely the same content that we make I.P. users see and that date formats just isn’t worth all the damned fuss.

Those four attributes are sufficient to establish a consensus.

Ryan and the arbitrators understand that this dispute mustn’t be allowed to rage until the heat death of the universe. Notwithstanding your protestations that the RfC results were closer than you would prefer, they don’t see it that way. Sure the community is divided in its opinion. But the decision apparently is going to be that the minority is not going to prevail; the clear majority will, and that’s the best we can do.

The simple reality is that some editors can get so wrapped up in achieving a certain desired outcome, the objective becomes part of their Wikipedian identity. Individuals like this can find fault in everything and anything that is contrary to their wishes. Life goes on. The rest of the community has had a belly full of the wikidrama surrounding this issue and wants to get on with normal editing. Greg L (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• P.S. As regards the linking portion of the RfC: The consensus on that point is exceedingly clear. The double-brackets are, for the most part, toast. 16:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You have a slim majority and are attempting to use it to silence the minority. That's not how we work here, at least it's not how we used to work. Apparently times have changed, and maybe it really is time for me to move on. The environment here is too hostile to reason and logic, and more accepting of hysteria, conjecture and innuendo. My ability to understand this discussion is in no way flawed, I posit that it is you and others who believe this view is correct that have the flawed point of view here. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"...hysteria, conjecture and innuendo" and "The environment here is too hostile"?—will the disingenuity never end? Please note user Locke_Cole's recent (strenuous and persistent) allegations of sock-puppetry involving Tony1 and myself—followed by his "...I withdraw my claim of sockpuppetry" (contained in this post). If Locke_Cole got that so badly wrong (not to mention his unrepentant support in the UC_Bill/Sapphic debacle), one can only wonder about what else his judgement has been seriously flawed lately.  HWV258  22:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Locke, we have a clear majority (not a “slim” one) and are certainly not trying to “silence” the minority. Everyone associated with this latest RfC has done our best. And it has reached an end with a clear majority in opposition to autoformatting and to most dates being linked. Wikidrama simply can not go on forever. You want it to. But it won’t. Quoting Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass:

There comes a point in every debate on Wikipedia where the debate itself has come to a natural end. You may have won the debate, you may have lost the debate, or you may have found yourself in an honourable draw. At this point you should drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.

As for your positing that I, the rest of our team, Ryan, and the ArbCom members are the ones who have a “flawed point of view”, I respond as follows: Thank you so very much; your point speaks volumes as to why a truly scandalous number of man-hours were wasted on this issue. As to your maybe it really is time for me to move on, well… if and when you do, have a nice life. Greg L (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Guys, please don't start belittling Locke Cole - he's discussing in good faith and he has a right to an opinion on the results of the poll (the sock allegations should probably stop unless there's serious evidence). I disagree with him rather strongly, but that's no reason to start making nasty, sarcastic comments against him. Please don't antagonise him or the situation further. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• OK Ryan. Focusing on your he's discussing in good faith comment; I’m quite skeptical about that bit. But I’ll hop onto the USS Pussyout in the face of political correctness (a wise person should never go up against P.C.)^(disclaimer) and concede that “good faith” can not be disproved here. I’m done responding to him for at least a few days. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Okay. Regarding the allegations, please see User_talk:Bishonen#Accusation_of_sock-puppetry_by_user_Locke_Cole and this.  HWV258  23:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• It is a slim majority. And it is being used here to try and silence a rather sizable minority. This works in politics, but it should not work here (where we operate through consensus). A better way forward is to find something that addresses as many of the concerns of those who oppose auto formatting (such as it also resulting in links to date articles) as well as the concerns of those who support it (such as fixing how it works for anonymous editors, and perhaps making linking an optional feature). We can only realize these compromises through reasonable discussion which doesn't take an "I want to win and get my way, exactly, with no compromise" approach to things. That sort of attitude never helps. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• To be absolutely clear here, the percentages keep getting tossed around, but strictly by the numbers: 287 editors opposing auto formatting are being used to make the encyclopedia less desirable for the 209 who support such a system. Is that really what we're going to do here Ryan? Ignore, entirely, the views of 209 editors to give 287 editors what they want? Is that how consensus works now? I think we can do better, and I think we owe it to the 209 who supported such a system to try harder to find some common ground here before calling the whole thing off. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Too little, too late Locke_Cole. The handful who have pushed the miracle technical cure have had months to come up with something. Not only have they not managed to even start a functional specification, but the only coding progress (aka demo) has been summarily deleted by a particularly nasty editor (now blocked and defunct). In addition, there is now doubt as to whether a technical solution can ever be 100% effective in handling the dates found on WP. The only way forward is to undo the current hideous date linking/formatting system (something that was never introduced with "consensus"). The two sides should now diverge: one side to remove the current date/linking and formatting; the other side to begin the process of trying to specify a date linking/formatting scheme that can be put in front of the community (for consensus this time if you please).  HWV258  03:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Go ahead and ask Brion Vibber or Tim Starling for a "functional specification" for MediaWiki. You won't get one. That is some odd obsession of yours, and as someone who has been involved in professional software development, I can tell you that not all changes require a specification before implementation. They do require some agreement about what the desired outcome is, but most devs are fully capable of working out the details on their own. Besides, we did work on the so-called "Son of auto formatting" specification subpage at MOSNUM, though nothing ever seemed to be enough for you (and this despite the fact that it was clearly unnecessary). As for "too little, too late", that has been the mantra since last October when I joined this discussion (it was originally said by Tony though, claiming he'd already exhausted the technical solution path, when in fact we had people willing to work with MOSNUM to try and come up with a solution that was at least workable to all as a compromise). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm, so a specification before programming is "some odd obsession" of mine? Just incredible. I'm convinced that both Brion Vibber and Tim Starling would prefer to work with a specification than without (as does any professional programmer). I'll tell you what though: the current date formatting/linking "solution" is a classic case of software implementation without agreed specifications—a shambles. The so-called specification for 'son of autoformatting' to which you refer remains as a sad reminder of the indecision around this topic (and to tell the truth, I was the only one pushing for a comprehensive specification—purely so that the community could be aware of what it was getting this time). I'm not overly convinced we need a "compromise" solution at this time (and according to the RfC results, neither does the WP editing community). Let's wipe the slate clean and then see what can be put before the community for a consensus decision—later.  HWV258  05:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Question Regarding Mediaton

The web page Ecological Forecasting has recently had changes added to it that I believe are incorrect. The page was started with scientific evidence and research and has gotten an editor who is changing and rephrasing the article to make it seem like Climate Change is not an actual occurrence. If there is a way to get a new editor, we would be greatly appreciative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EcoForecast EcoForecast (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)(talk

Article list

Hi Ryan,

You referred to Lightbot running through this list. My impression was that Lightbot would be tasked with removal of autoformatting from the whole of Wikipedia (except so-called 'chronological articles'). Are you merely seeking to ensure that those articles are de-autoformatted first or are you suggesting that the rest of Wikipedia should retain autoformatting? I am a little confused about this. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

We're nowhere near ready to start removing links from all articles. The list contains the articles that will be broken when dynamic dates is switched off so only the dates which will broken should be delinked. As far as removal of links across all articles is concerned, I'm not sure a bot could do the task - it's going to need thought that a bot that a not can't give. --Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, I don't understand why we'd want to leave non-autoformatted full dates linked. There was never a proposal to remove linking from date-fragments at all in this bot run, and they are the only ones that require human judgement. Tony (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Say what, Ryan? As far as removal of links across all articles is concerned, I'm not sure a bot could do the task. Have you asked Lightmouse whether this is possible? I sure hope it is; because there are (literally) over a million of them to be delinked. That is simply too large of a task to be done manually. My proposal—that Lightbot be run on a hundred or so articles, tweaked based on feedback, and then try perhaps a thousand articles (etcetera) before going full speed—applied to making dates MOSNUM-compliant project-wide. Greg L (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• P.S. The RfC results on date linking couldn’t have been clearer as to what the community wants. Moreover, the consensus was a landslide. That RfC was started after the bot was doing its thing and then Locke stopped it with his ArbCom wikidrama. That’s all over now. There is no reason in the world to not let the bot demonstrate its capabilities in a well-controlled ramp-up and then let it go back to what it was doing—only tweaked to be ever better than it was before. It’s really quite simple for a bot: according to the new MOSNUM guideline, it will be an exceedingly rare date that is supposed to stay linked if it isn’t in a chronological article like 1995. Greg L (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yes I think Ryan needs to please clarify. The community, which hates date links, was promised in the RfC that the linking markup would "continue to be removed, and any dates that are inconsistent with the overall format for their article will be corrected, manually or using automatic means". So that promise should be honoured. My reading of Ryan's words above, based on the sum total of discussion, is that delinking under human supervision will be permitted (once the injunction is lifted), but bots will be able to clean up the articles with problems which will be apparent when DD is switched off. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oh whatever Greg, you know there's a reason not to delink dates right now. Because it would remove the auto formatting that was not rejected at this latest RFC. Don't confuse the effect (a hyperlink) with the cause (the markup). Further, it doesn't matter what Lightmouse thinks his bot is capable of, unless he's come up with some amazing form of artificial intelligence which can discern a valuable date link from one that's worthless, there is not a bot he could run that would comply with the RFC results. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Not the point at all. The idea of the bots is to wipe the slate clean so that the (small number of) relevant dates can be manually recoded by hand. This issue was quite clear in the debate. It is not a problem.  HWV258  03:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• The explicit promise to the community is good reason enough to remove the markup, IMHO. We do not know what form the markup will be for any future DA which may/may not be adopted, so it's a bit too much like trying to use a crystal ball to keep it just in some vague hope that it will be one day useful. The community clearly believes that most links are irrelevant (as not being germane to any given article), and that few links, if any, are "valuable". Ohconfucius (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• Locke, regarding your comment unless he's come up with some amazing form of artificial intelligence which can discern a valuable date link from one that's worthless: I found one! I found a simple, non‑aliased, tri‑component date in regular article‑space that should be linked!  It’s here in our Trivia article.^Footnote #1 Beyond that one, they don’t appear to exist in in regular article‑space. Accordingly, it will be a simple issue for the bot: avoid the chronological articles like 1995. Like I’ve said before, in a forty‑article test analysis, Lightmouse’s bot produced 0% false positives and 0% false negatives. On the off‑chance that there is another trivia-related article, we can manually restore that one. Lightmouse can handle the technical aspects of making his bot comply sufficiently well with MOSNUM; he just needs the universe to stop looking over his shoulder, get out of his face, and stop making a mountain out of a mole hill. To Lightmouse: Be sure to make your bot leave Trivia alone; all its dates and date fragments should be linked. Greg L (talk) 05:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

  1) Indeed, in the date “September 13, 1965” in our Trivia article, if you click on either the September 13 component, or the 1965 component, you will be taken to two articles that have nothing whatsoever to do with trivia other than the fact that they are random lists of historical trivia, which therefore makes them suitable candidates to link to.

• Exactly. And one more thing—I'd like to repeat my call for a link in the bot edit comment to direct the interested editor to a page that explains exactly what is going on (following a bot script-based edit). Where could that link point, who should write the page, and what should the page contain? I'm happy to start the page if someone could indicate where it should live.  HWV258  05:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• My guess is that it would be a subpage of MOSNUM. Xeno might be one to ask on that. Greg L (talk) 05:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus on wiping the slate clean - none at all. No bot will be used (or get approval) to do a task where it removes some good work from the site. If you use a bot to do a task, it should do the job at hand. I'd welcome removal of date links where the article is germane to the date, but thought needs to go into each and every one to decide whether that is important. Greg, I'm not going to bother asing LM - I know for a fact that a bot can't decide on the importance of a date. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 07:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• So it seems my understanding of the postion is correct. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) during the drafting of the April RfC i asked whether the bot-implementation question was going to be included, and Ryan Postlethwaite stated that implementation would be settled in a subsequent RfC. until further notice i reckon that's the route you intend to pursue to determine whether or not there's consensus for the "wipe the slate clean" approach? Sssoul (talk) 07:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but I would suspect that the community would reject a wipe the slate clean approach. I'll set up an RfC to determine implementation, but it's going to be much less profile than the poll. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 07:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet another' poll? Many voters expressed irritation at having to vote again in virtually the same poll. What bothers me is that many people will just ignore another one, which runs the risk of distorting the result. And I think we are all sick to the gills with polls. I'd have thought the four RFCs against DA were quite enough to get rid of the old system. And the fiction being put about that somehow the linking around full dates is precious ... no, it is totally irrelevant to any subsequent scheme, if it ever gained consensus to implement. The community has shown that it does not like the old system. A sizeable proportion of the minority who didn't oppose DA in concept did not want the blue-link system. It should be removed as promptly and easily as possible, IMO, and Lightbot appears to be an easy and safe way of doing this. Tony (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, Lightbot wouldn't be involved in this - if dates are unlinked by bots, new bot operators will take over who aren't involved in the dispute (Lightbot won't get approval to do anything related with dates in the future because of the problems associated with the past). He is of course within his rights to help code the bot, or offer some of his code to another bot operator. Secondly, an implementation poll looks like it's required - we know what we want from the previous poll, but we don't know how to go about doing it yet. You guys look at me in disgust when I say that delinking all dates isn't going to happen - well I put it to you that the rest of community will think it's a bad idea - there will be millions of edits from a bot needed to do this and that's far from desirable. Nobody is going to get consensus from BAG to run that bot without some serious community consensus on the actual implementation, rather than just the task. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to start the implementation poll just yet however because it would delay the posting of the proposed decision further. It's important we get that before we start thinking about how we move things forward. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• "delinking all dates isn't going to happen"—Why would some dates be left blue-formatted and others not?
• "well I put it to you that the rest of community will think it's a bad idea" .... um ... why? What evidence do you have that having said multiple times that they don't want DA, especially the old system, that people don't want it removed?
• "there will be millions of edits from a bot needed to do this and that's far from desirable"—this is why you'd use a bot. Millions of edits is not a lot for a bot, particularly given a simple brief. Why is it "far from desirable"? Tony (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

and how do you know that they want it removed by a bot making millions of edits? You'd don't and that's why we need an implementation poll. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• An implementation poll is fine. It should be pithy, exceedingly clear and with a lack of techno-babble as to what is being contemplated, and binary. I’d also suggest that it run for only a week; that will help with participation too. Over and over now in RfCs, nothing changes in the poll balance after the first week (often even the first 48 hours). Greg L (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Quoting you, Ryan: No bot will be used (or get approval) to do a task where it removes some good work from the site. What “good work” is that? We’re talking about removing the double-brackets, which is to say, removing the links. There is no “good work” whatsoever which would be undone that I can discern. If someone editor of Cold fusion wants to turn this…

Cold fusion, under this definition, was first announced on March 23, 1989 when Fleischmann and Pons reported producing nuclear fusion in a tabletop experiment…

to this:

Cold fusion, under this definition, was first announced on March 23, 1989 when Fleischmann and Pons reported producing nuclear fusion in a tabletop experiment…

…under the delusion that they are “doing good work” by linking that date to two articles that have nothing whatsoever to do with cold fusion, they will be reverted soon enough by editors who will point to MOSNUM.

Challenge: Perhaps I need an education here. Maybe there are more dates in non-chronological articles that should remain linked than I can imagine. I suggest we randomly chose ten non-chronological articles and find a date that is supposed to be linked. I propose we chose from the top 1000 most-view articles and select the ten least visited ones by using the prime numbers just smaller than one-thousand: 937    941    947    953    967    971    977    983    991    997. Thus, the last two articles in the list are Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock and Fuwa. I challenge you, Ryan to find a date in those ten articles that ought to remain linked. Keep a tally of the dates that should remain unlinked (or be unlinked) versus the dates that should remain/be linked. The litmus test to be used in deciding whether it should be linked or unlinked shall be the current wording on MOSNUM. Greg L (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If a bot removes one link that should be kept then that's not good enough. We aren't delinking everything then starting from scratch relinking. I'm not suggesting loads should be kept, but every date that is unlinked should be evaluated for its merits - the poll didn't say unlink all dates, non-trivial dates should still be kept. The key is going to be start off very slowly when the injunction is lifted, not the delinking editors bulldozing their way through the encyclopedia. The proposed decision on the case will be here within a week or so and it's going to be best to wait till that comes before we look further at implementation - I've been told that another poll will delay the decision further and it's been long enough already. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"...the poll didn't say unlink all dates, non-trivial dates should still be kept". The more you consider the question, the more you'll realise there is no other way to go about it. Running over millions of articles is exactly what was always proposed, and it was then assumed that interested editors can relink any relevant dates. A link in the bot script edit comment pointing to a page explaining why the delinking has just happened, as well as giving an indication of the nature of "relevant" will assist with the process. WP has no deadline, and the end result can be achieved in just such a manner.  HWV258  22:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

One important thing I want to add is this; It looks as if I'm coming across as completely opposed to the idea of unlinking all dates - I'm not. I am however considering the entire community - any bot task that will involve millions of edits and lead to clean up work being required (to relink some dates) needs to be fully agreed by the community with a good number of users having the chance to express their opinion. We've heard what the community want, but they didn't say that they wanted this to be achieved by adding edits to almost every single article on the wiki. Hopefully the implementation poll will give community members to express how they want the poll results implementing. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Fair enough, Ryan. Years ago, when I was quite the newbie, the first time I ever clicked on a date link was the above-mentioned sentence in Cold fusion. I thought “Oh man Wikipedia is cool! I’m going to go to an article that is a detailed account of the Fleischmann and Pons tabletop experiment.” Instead, my reaction was “Awe… shiiiiiiiit.” If the ArbCom wants another RfC, then that’s what’s gonna happen. But it would be beneficial if you all had a more accurate estimate of what is at stake in order that the RfC as accurately as possible describes the issues. So it would be nice if you guys would accept my above challenge. Can anyone find just one in those ten articles? Greg L (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • At present, #937 is List of multiple Olympic gold medalists, a set of tables; right now, the tables link to 1896 because some of the dates are ISO. It would be better to link 1896 Summer Olympics and mask, but at least the date link puts the related article two clicks away. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason the dates link to 1896 is "because the dates are ISO"??? That sounds like exactly the reason why the dates need to be unlinked. There's no point in trying to save space in that table, since the table above is already 200px wider, so why not use an accepted format? None of those dates need to be linked in this case, since there's a link to the article Athletics_at_the_1896_Summer_Olympics in the "Earlier gold-medal events" column in the table anyway - and the same for all the other Olympic games the table refers to. How much overlinking does anybody need? --RexxS (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

One of several fixes the article could use. Others include linking to 1896 once and only once in each table; but the question was a useful date-link, not a perfect one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

An even better fix would be to link to 1896 exactly zero times in that article. Quad erat demonstrandum. --RexxS (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No, don't link to 1896 at all. I suggest adding 1896 in sports to the see also section; that is much more germane and we don't have to worry about easter-egg links. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The "community" that "hates" date-links consists of Tony, Greg L, HWV258, and Ohconfucius; most of the rest of us simply want the warring to stop, without too much unnecessary meddling. That's why they need to use a bot; they can't persuade the rest of us to routinely unlink everything. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not a fair characterization. There are a great many editors who hate the date links and want them all to go away as soon as possible. (Although I won't argue that Tony, Greg, et al are really, really vocal.) I'm very interested to see what the results of a further RfC will be, although I suspect we've already crossed the line into "I'm-sick-of-this"-land. Karanacs (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• PMA, quoting you: It would be better to link 1896 Summer Olympics and mask. A good point. That’s what I’ve been saying all along, including here at WP:Why dates should not be linked. Once bots go through and clean out all these non‑MOSNUM-compliant links, editors can go in and do what you propose.

  Mind you, I’m not sure what you mean by “mask”. If that means alias 1896 Summer Olympics so it looks like 1896, that’s the last thing any editor would ever want to do. For one thing, many readers now habitually know not to click on links that look like that. For another, it is simply sound technical writing practice to write links so readers have a clear idea what they would be taken to if they click on it. One could, for instance, put it in the form of a parenthetical like (see 1896 Summer Olympics), or they could add it as a bullet point in the article’s See also section.

  HWV258’s phrase “wipe the slate clean” is quite appropriate. That’s precisely what Wikipedia needs so we can lose these links that go to non‑germane trivia and provide editors a fresh opportunity to consider whether there is a germane and relevant article to which one can link. Greg L (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

  • The text being linked is the date of the event for which the gold was awarded; it is undesirable to change that, especially since the tables fill a screen as they stand. On Greg's line of reasoning, 1896 is the best available link to give the reader more information, which Wikipedia does have. Quod erat demonstrandum. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

<--Because of Date autoformatting, linked dates have spread throughout WP like Ground-elder in our Wiki-garden. As with the weed, linked dates are pervasive, and they keep coming back because new editors keep linking (old habits die hard). In this most overgrown garden, the most efficient way of ridding ourselves of the weed is to nuke it with a selective weedkiller, rather than spending endless hours pulling each rhizome out manually. Because WP is 'organic' in a broad sense, desirable plants will grow back once the weeds are eradicated, and manual effort can be targeted on its upkeep. In the vast majority of articles, there are no "relevant date links", in some articles, these dates may be in their small numbers. Many articles get few visits a year, and even if they do, editors may not think to unlink dates, so these are unlikely ever to be touched without a systematic methodology. Poll results indicate that there is slightly more support for certain [relevant] years to be linked, whereas the overwhelming consensus is that links to the [dm] or [md] component bring nothing to the party. Bots, which are the best means to systematically and efficiently "weed our garden". They can be 'regulated' to go at a certain pace, their action can be made specific to avoid certain articles or certain types of articles. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Since Ohconfucius chooses to describe his chosen solution as an application of pesticide, I can only agree. Like real pesticides, it will destroy much that should be kept, and leave a toxic residue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• There are always those who believe 'pests' and 'weeds' do not exist - I'm not one of them. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Nor am I; but there are reasons to keep pesticides limited, even in the presence of pests. Just ask ArbCom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Gosh, you almost sound reasonable with that comment above. I believe the suggestion is a one-off massive blitz to eliminate the worst overgrowth, to be supplemented in future by largely manual effort. Ohconfucius (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ryan Postlethwaite, you pointed out above that "Nobody is going to get consensus from BAG to run that bot without some serious community consensus on the actual implementation" - i understand that, but can you clarify, please, what you meant by "I'll set up an RfC to determine implementation, but it's going to be much less profile than the poll"? that sounds almost like an intention to deliberately keep the "implementation RfC" unpublicized, which isn't a good way to sound. of course it's dismaying if yet another RfC on this subject is deemed necessary, but if it has to happen surely the point is to get as much input as possible. Sssoul (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is, it's not going to get a watchlist notice which will almost certainly mean it isn't going to be as high profile. I'll post to all the noticeboards and project talk pages like I did with the main poll. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

... really puzzled: why would it not get a watchlist notice? everyone understands that it might not attract as much input as the previous RfC, but planning to keep it off the watchlist doesn't serve the stated aim of getting "some serious community consensus on the actual implementation". Sssoul (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you not understand how hard it is to get a watchlist notice? Whilst this dispute might be really important for you, the rest of the community are sick to death of it. This isn't the sort of dispute that normally gets a watchlist notice because it's not big enough, yet date linking has had two already - there's not a chance it's getting a third. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 06:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) no, it's not necessarily common knowledge that it's very hard to get a watchlist notice, and it's good that you had the opportunity to clarify that. and i'm one of the people who's tired of this - it's not me who's saying another RfC is needed. Sssoul (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Is your statement based on an imminent Arbcom ruling?

Hi Ryan,

On 21 April 2009 you said:

• "Is your bot ready to start working through this list and removing only the dates that are problematic when dynamic dates is turned off?"

On 23 April 2009 you said:

• "Firstly, Lightbot wouldn't be involved in this - if dates are unlinked by bots, new bot operators will take over who aren't involved in the dispute (Lightbot won't get approval to do anything related with dates in the future because of the problems associated with the past)."

Those two statements contradict each other. Is your statement based on an imminent Arbcom ruling? Lightmouse (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually no it's not - I've spokenbto a number of people in the know how regarding how a bot might be involved, they suggested that you might be a little too involved to carry out an effective job. To be blunt, your edits wouldn't be respected in this area. On a side note, arbclerks get no information regarding the work the arbs do other than what normal editors do - I have found out however through prodding that the decision will be within a week. --Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say that Lightmouse has done an excellent job in creating a bot with a relatively low false-positive rate and being sensitive to others requests. However, it is probably not for me to say. I can understand (if not agree) with the other points of view. Anyway, Who would be a respected and sufficiently neutral bot operator for this task? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Whoever it may be, I don't envy him/her - for all his hard work, Lightmouse has received more flak than any editor acting in good faith deserves. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Mediation Member

Hey Ryan,

I'm currently interested in joining the Mediation Comittee and solving some disputes. As for the present, I am really not quite sure if I should go ahead and volunteer myself to take a task, or nominate myself. I would like to have a few guidelines on what should I do before I send in my nomination. I'd also like to know what processes and steps a Mediator takes in a case, and what the job involves. Currently I'm not really wanting to go ahead and volunteer myself for a task just for a plain reason that if I mess anything, I make myself look like I'm some nut case who doesn't know what he's doing, given adequate powers as well. I hope you can help me! Thanks! Renaissancee (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

• Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
• News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
• WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked User requesting help

G-day Ryan- I was blocked for being disrepspectful about a year and a half ago, and the offended admin was subsequently banned & sent off to jail for another matter. In the interim, I was unable to login, nor request help on my user page since I was totally blocked by the departed admin person. After some time spent studying the matter and repenting, I decided I could make a fresh start under the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry "Clean start under a new name" section. Needless to say, I was spotted recently (not doing anything rude or naughty) and blocked again. The new blocking admin claims what I was doing was Sock Puppetry, but I thought I was making a "Clean Start" under a new name. Today I'm contacting you as an anonymous IP only since I can't contact anyone as a logged-in user. Is there any hope that I can get past this? I'm a useful editor with almost 400 edits under my "Clean Start" name (none for 1-1/2 yrs under my previous name, which also had hundreds of good edits). Note that I've never Socked or vandalized, didn't go back to troublesome articles, and the only friction I've caused is calling an admin (who was himself banned) a bad name (I think "demented" was the expression I used). Since I can only communicate as an IP, how should I go about getting help? Bushcutter<-- this was my "Clean Start" name. Thanks. Apr 29,2009

• Oh for God’s sake, this guy needs to get unblocked. He’s obviously learned his lesson to only swear like a sailor to editors who aren’t administrators—like UC Bill and Sapphic chronically got away with. As Sapphic, he got a 12-hour block for swearing up a storm. How much additional time did he get for calling a family member “retarded”(?): zero additional time. I’d say that a 1-1/2-year block for calling an administrator “demented” ought to be expiring soon here, no? Greg L (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If this user is reinstated, perhaps it could be with an undertaking to avoid LGBT-related articles, as that seems to be the source of much of the conflict. His edits on those articles have tended towards the tendentious[10], libellous[11], and hostile[12].--Trystan (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Corrib Gas RfM

Hello Ryan, I know you've accepted this mediation. I'm relatively new to all this and I'm not sure how long these things to get underway. Please see Talk:Integrated Risk Management Services, especially the section on Original Research. I've been trying to work through issues with the other user involved but at this point, things seem to be coming to head. Thanks. GainLine ^♠_♥ 21:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi Ryan,

Since one of the involved parties chose not to participate and the mediation failed, I'm wondering what other options are left open to me in order to get other editors involved in settling the issue. I'm frankly tired of having an edit war, since it's a complete waste of my time. Thanks for the help. --Eightofnine (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The option you missed is still open, discussing on a talk page. Mediation is meant for situations where discussion has failed. I would also note all 4 articles you had issue with now have sources. So the edit war should be done. -Djsasso (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Not true. The sources are from as early as 2002, when many of these players had not played for Russia yet. Of course they were Ukrainian citizens then, when citizenship had not been revoked yet! You need to find sources which mirror the current situation, or show that players were playing for both countries at the time the sources were published. --Eightofnine (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually Tverdovsky 93, Zherdev 02, Vishnevsky 97. And it doesn't mention citizenship, it says of Ukrainian descent, which can't be stripped from you by law. -Djsasso (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyways shouldn't spam poor Ryan. If you wish to discuss feel free to message me on my page or an article page. I will let Ryan answer if there are other options for you. :) -Djsasso (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you thought about submitting a content RfC or requesting a third opinion? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Tennis expert exceeding limits again

Ryan, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence I've noticed that user:Tennis expert is again exceeding the quantitative limits applicable to submissions. A quick check using one of the freeware word counters on the web shows his material to run over 2500 words. The limit, clearly stated in a box at the top of the page, is 1000 words. Could you please trim the material to make it conform, thank you very much. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll take a look. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this dealt with? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the evidence section has now been removed. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

My arbitration evidence

Why did you remove all the evidence I presented without moving it to a user subpage instead? Included in your removal are the short paragraphs that refer arbitrators to my user subpage. You are, in effect, preventing me from presenting any evidence at all. What is your justification? Tennis expert (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You've already an polite message from me regarding this and you have chosen to do exactly the same thing again. I originally spent time moving it to a subpage, but I was not willing to do the same this time round so I simply removed it until you were willing to rectify the problem. As I said, you're free to readd it at any time, but please make sure it's under the 1000 word/100 diff limit. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As the diffs will show, 95 percent of what you deleted has been there for months. And then you suddenly changed your mind about it. Wonder why? Highly improper behavior on your part. And thanks for the notification that you had deleted everything.... Tennis expert (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No, if you respected the rules from the outset this would not have been a problem. You've now chosen to ignore them twice, if you do it a third time I'll remove your evidence and you won't be able to add it back. On a side note, your sarcastic comment below (a cut and paste of another users comment) is undesired on my talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't intended to be sarcasm. It was simply easier and faster to use someone else's comment as a template. As for the rules, I never ignored them, and you really should stop assuming my bad faith. My understanding was that there is leeway in the rules, based on things said before and as evidenced by their being enforced sporadically or not at all in this particular arbitration case. If you believe the rules are hard-and-fast, then perhaps you should have enforced them from the outset so that we were not under a misimpression. Letting material sit for months and then suddenly deleting certain material based on a complaint you received has an unfortunate arbitrariness about it. Tennis expert (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ohconfucius exceeding limits

Ryan, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence I've noticed that Ohconfucius is exceeding the quantitative limits applicable to submissions. A quick check shows his material to run over 2,200 words. The limit, clearly stated in a box at the top of the page, is 1,000 words. Could you please trim the material to make it conform? Thank you very much. Tennis expert (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Colonies Chris also exceeding limits

Colonies Chris also is exceeding the quantitative limits. His material runs over 1,400 words. Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, are you intending to do anything about the excessive contributions of Colonies Chris? Tennis expert (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I just have done. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

E-mail

Hey Ryan, I've sent you an E-mail. Best wishes. Acalamari 20:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've replied Acal - sorry it took so long :-)

No worries. :) Responded. Acalamari 23:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence

I see that PMAnderson's evidence is over 1500 words, larger than mine. Why haven't you made the same request of him? Colonies Chris (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I will do then. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you, or CC, counted the words. I have removed a large chunk (an exact quote of Lightbot's request for approval/3. Let me know what sections, if any, you would refactor to talk. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed a largely moot section to talk. I would prefer not to trim further; let me know what you must do. (If the Evidence against me is long enough to fill any remaining gap, it is probably the most dispensible.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

According to Word, my evidence is now 995 words. Colonies Chris (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

According to my word counter, they're both slightly over however I'm happy with both now (we do allow a little leeway). Thank you both for a quick response to my request - much appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

• News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
• Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Per your request

I don't really see what there is to discuss, but you're uppity over this, which is a really mild comment to be labeled as "below the belt tactics". You believe, apparently, that admins should be free to display a pattern of flipping out inappropriately and retain or regain their sysop bit at request. I find that to be highly problematic and would not, under any circumstances, trust you with the 'crat bit knowing that's your view. If that displeases you (or my voicing that opinion publicly displeases you), that's unfortunate, but you'll have to deal with it. If he returns and you file such a request, expect a full-case to come of it, because I and others will build there what we were going to build into an RFC. That RFC that he resigned in order to avoid, if you recall. لennavecia 19:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Permanently Banned User requesting help

Sorry to repeat myself here, but my recent request for your help with being banned 1-1/2 years ago was archived before it could be answered, and I'm not sure how to bring it back to the fore. Is it OK to keep seeking an answer? Bushcutter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.131.164 (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

• From the editor: Writers needed
• Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
• Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
• News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Tennis_expert

I've deleted User_talk:Tennis_expert per his request. Regarding your edit comment, WP:RTV says "Note that this will work on all of the pages in your userspace, except for your user talk pages – these are generally not deleted unless a user is exercising a permanent right to vanish." He is, or says so. I'm not sure how to interpret "Since there is no way to know if this is the case, it's best to not delete user talk pages on request." William M. Connolley (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a couple of reasons why I don't believe his talk page should be deleted. Firstly, WP:RTV specifically states that talk pages are rarely deleted ("Deleting the account's user page and subpages (talk pages are rarely deleted, and can be undeleted by community consensus)") and secondly, he's about to get sanction in an arbitration case (also from WP:RTV, "The right to vanish might not be extended to users who have been abusive or disruptive, who left when they lost the trust of the community, or who have been banned.") so he really should count himself lucky that his userpage is deleted. The talk page is being used in the evidence subpage of the arbitration so needs restoring so all the diffs are available. William, please do reconsider this deleted. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 08:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that they should be restored for now - it's just too soon to erase all these exchanges from view of ordinary users. Back in November, Tennis made a dramatic retirement, but returned within 3 weeks, so it's still not certain he has disappeared for good. May I suggest that the page could be reinstated and redeleted in [six] months if Tennis has not made an appearance by then under this or another guise? I warrant that unless he changes his modus operandi, we will know pretty soon once he rears his head again. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Um. This has mess written all over it. I may have been hasty, but lets not be hasty in undoing my mistake, if it is indeed one. A day's thought will do no harm, and in the meantime arbcomm can see what it needs to William M. Connolley (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have managed to contact tennis expert, pointed out our recent principle on RTV, and asked him to sleep on it. I'll let you know the outcome. Until then, I think we can keep this issue on pause. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Just checking back. Still on hold? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

FT and plagiarism

I noticed your comment over at the bureaucrats noticeboard and wanted to reply to you here. Unlike Peter Damian I'm not interested in relitigating the previous RfA and don't have a particular problem with how it was handled. But I'm quite concerned by your comment about FlyingToaster's article work, namely that what was going on was merely some "inappropriate paraphrasing." I posted a note about this issue over on FlyingToaster's talk page and you might want to take a look at that, as well as some comments on the ANI thread though you've probably seen those. From what I can see, we are not talking here about inappropriate paraphrasing, we are indeed talking about plagiarism. Or perhaps a better way to put that is that "inappropriate paraphrasing" is plagiarism. I only looked at several articles, but in basically all of them FT took a whole sentence or more (these were all stubs) and copied them nearly word for word, making only extremely cosmetic changes. That is precisely what plagiarism is (at least in much of the Western world), and this is precisely the kind of thing that admins need to know about well in advance of becoming an admin—it goes to the very heart of what we are doing here. The RfA was basically fine, such as RfAs go, but this is a whole different kettle of fish which has little or nothing to do with IRC and all that nonsense. I'm hoping you can look into this in a little more detail because I think there's a lot more cause for concern here than you may have initially thought. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm impressed

whenever I see someone change his mind for good reason. -- Noroton (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your words. I just couldn't stay in opposition in good faith. I had a long hard think about things (and what a number of people had said under my oppose, including yourself) and looked at the wider picture - he's certainly a hard working guy and a very knowledgeable administrator. Luckily, I concluded with the right answer in the end (even though it took a while!). Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking question

Ryan, could you please review the contributions for Quadell and RandySavageFTW per the date delinking filter? I'd like to know if this form of delinking is in line with the injunction or not. (Please note that I've brought the subject up with Quadell, who appears to be acting in good faith. Following our conversation, Quadell has attempted to get clarification regarding delinking, but does not appear to have received a response yet. I haven't had a chance to discuss it with RandySavageFTW.) If the edits do not meet the requirements, could you please let these editors know? I do feel that they would be willing to respect the restriction, but may not be aware that it applies to those edits. Thanks in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

Ta very much

[13] ...and the righteous shall inherit the earth :P Cheers! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 18:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

• License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
• News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia: threat or menace?
• WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Scientology in Australia

Hey there. You placed a POV flag on Scientology in Australia way back in Dec 2007. Can you see if it is still justified? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alan, thanks for the note. If you see here where I placed the tag, it was only when I was mass reverting SmackBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) when it went a little weird. I didn't originally place the the tag. Sorry I couldn't be more help! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Li Yong (Tang Dynasty)

Hiya Ryan,

Could you comment at User talk:AGK#Li Yong (Tang Dynasty) when you have a moment? I think the undeletion of the discussion page of a rejected RfM to be something that the chair should probably adjudge.

Thanks,

AGK 16:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Favor

You were good enough to inform me of my last-minute inclusion in the Date linking Arbcom by User:Jayvdb. User:Jayvdb offered on 18 May to re-examine this ("If you believe I could frame your involvement better, I will be happy to spend some more time digging a bit deeper. It isn't my intention to misrepresent the truth.'") if I was able to post evidence. I did this on 25-26 May (here) and have informed Jayvdb of this, and requested that he make good on his promise, but have not yet received a reply. Could you possibly give him a nudge? I know the case is due to close soon and I am keen to avoid the complication and extra work that an inaccurate and unjust sanction and the resultant appeals process would likely necessitate. There are also relevant comments on my evidence and the proposed sanctions against me here and here which I would like arbitrators to read before voting. Thank you. --John (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• as a peripherally involved person, I dont think I ever saw John involved in the MOSNUM back and forth. IMHO he should not be on that page. I suspect others from both sides would agree. dm (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with foregoing. Looks like the Arbs are going for the same punishment for John as for Tennis expert. How can this be right??? Sanctions against John would prove to all that Arbs just cannot see the wood from the trees. This 'one size fits all' justice would just make Arbcom look even more stupid. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Actually it's smart to remove all of us from the dispute; it's become obvious none of us will get along with one another, some because they are persistent bullies and opportunists, others because their good faith in their fellow editor has been totally lost. Those who join the discussion in our places won't have bad faith and bullying to deal with (hopefully) and will hopefully explore all reasonable options for moving forward. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Locke, I was tying to distinguish between people who added/removed dates in good faith and did not become engaged in the MOSNUM arena. There were a number of people (myself included) who went to MOSNUM, argued their side and realized that it was a cesspool of incivility on all sides. Everyone else on that page was a MOSUM regular for better or worse, I dont ever remember seeing John involved. Do you? dm (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'd need to look more closely; my concern was with Ohconfucius's "one size fits all" comment as it applies to those of us who were obviously involved. I'm actually disappointed that the committee seems to be carving out exceptions for "valuable contributors" (read: Tony1) while leaving the rest of us hobbled to not even discuss the matter (which smacks of silliness; Tony1 wasn't capable of even discussing this civilly, why should he be given a pass?). Back to John, I'll go take another look, but I trust Jayvdb did reasonable research in to the editors he proposed for sanctions. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• He stated otherwise here ("found due to looking at G-Man's reverts as opposed to any careful analysis of your contributions") and I see no reason to disbelieve him, nor is there any evidence that he has done more research since. If he would reply to the messages I left him then we might have a better idea of course. --John (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Agree that John (talk · contribs) shouldn't be mentioned on that page. He was never involved in the history of the dispute. I don't believe that Arbcom looks "stupid" (I certainly wouldn't like the tough job of sorting through a year's worth of debate and evidence), but the "wood from the trees" is an apt analogy. John's involvement in all this amounts to little more than a tiny piece of grass in front of the mighty oak trees of the woods, (and this analogy is sapping my strength). If John must be mentioned, then all that is required is a warning (for one revert-type edit), and he should be allowed to go on his way without a blemish on his record. I too wonder how it will look when someone who made 751 reverts gets treated similarly to someone who made one.  HWV258  04:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi John. I've emailed Jayvdb asking him to take a look at this thread. Hopefully that will jog his memory. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 07:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --John (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Favor II

Hi Ryan. Could you please have a look at this (especially in response to Ckatz's input). I specifically requested Ckatz's involvement with this edit. Thanks for any help you can provide.  HWV258  09:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it might be helpful to add remedies for HWV258 (particularly including him in the topic ban) given the incivility. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a look, but I'm not exactly sure what you want me to do. Could you elaborate please? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 07:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. I guess I'm wondering if all that "evidence" could just be removed? After all, it's clearly been submitted too late, has nothing to do with date linking (or date delinking for that matter); has been exaggerated; has been incorrectly construed; and is obviously vindictive. Cheers.  HWV258  08:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's too late. The arbs have voted to close. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

chat?

Hi, could we have a quick chat on IRC please? Cheers, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

• From the editor: Browsing the archives
• Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
• Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
• News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Link fix

Can you fix User_talk:RexxS#Comment on AMiB and Dates? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 15:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Qestion about possible date de-linking bot proposal

Hi Ryan. I am thinking starting a community RfC for a proposal of a date delinking bot. It would be strictly for autoformatting-type date links such as "[[November 5]], [[1989]]", while leaving fragments such as [[5 November]] or [[1989]] alone. First, are there any general objections to making such a proposal? I think nobody has any bad blood with me, so it would not become a flamewar right away. Second, would it be allowed to contact those who commented on previous RfCs on their talk pages with a neutral message? They might feel cheated if their opinion is overruled by a new RfC that they didn't hear about. On the other hand it could be seen as excessive talk page spamming of canvassing. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Apoc. Could you please leave it for now? At least until the arbitration case has finished. It would be good to get that out of the way before we move forward. I'm planning on starting an RfC myself at that point in time that looks into the implementation of the date linking poll (which would obviously encompass a bots role) and one that goes into more detail about autoformatting. It would be good at that point in time to contact everybody who has participated in the original poll on their talk page with a neutral message, but we'll look at that after the arbitration. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 07:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration case is nearly over (just a note). Dabomb87 (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I will leave it at least until after the case ends. I would prefer a simple RFC to get this issue out of the way rather than a huge one trying to answer every question related to date links and autoformatting. I know when I answer RFCs I hate when I have to answer a long list of obscure questions. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I see I forgot to provide the link, Wikipedia:Full-date unlinking bot, but perhaps you found it anyway. I would be very happy for any feedback on the proposal and its wording. I think many agree with me, that a delinking bot is the issue that needs to be resolved soon by community consensus. Many other issues were answered by your previous RFC, and the remaining is less urgent. There are some new autoformatting ideas, but I think that is best presented as a concrete proposal. I want to start soon, because getting a good discussion is hard if the post-arbcom atmosphere gets tainted by conflicts over interpretation of restrictions, socking to avoid blocks, someone proposing a bot directly to BAG or whatever might crop up. I am planning to run it for two weeks. That should be enough for a simple proposal. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:FICT

I'm proposing that we look to mediation to help us out at WP:FICT. Is what I've suggested in any way feasible? Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Mediation. Hiding T 10:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Hiding, good to hear from you. From what I can see, you're suggesting a neutral user with experience in mediation steps in to guide discussion and if all parties agree, the mediator can offer their opinion as to where the consensus lies as discussion progresses. That's slightly out of the scope of the Mediation Committee or the Mediation Cabal because the mediator would be expected to make decisions (albeit very minor ones about where consensus lies). I think the best bet would be to get a two mediators to help here simply because of the scope and number of parites involved, although it wouldn't be part of MedCom or MedCab. Would you like me to try and find a couple of suitable people? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ryan, you almost sounded like you meant that. I think first I'd like to make sure there's enough people willing to participate before we go anywhere. The trouble I think we're having is that we have a core of support for a general principle, but we can't agree on the detail, and also that there's a fair amount of fili-bustering and ownership going on. I'm not saying my own behaviour is exemplary, (that'll come back to haunt me...) but I certainly want to find a way out of this mess which doesn't involve the arbitration committee, as that won't solve the real issue. We need some way of working and building a consensus which doesn't degenerate into edit warring and communication breakdown. If I can get any traction for any form of mediation, I'll be happy for eternally grateful to you for anything you can do to sort things out. I haven't been involved in mediation in ages, but I think they start off asking each party to outline their position and build from there. Even if we could just get some help in understanding the consensus opurselves, for example if a mediator could set discussion up so that we could see amongst ourselves that five people agree and one doesn't, that would be a damn great help. Thank you. Hiding T 11:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Committee/Policy

I read somewhere a policy that say, in effect, the results of a mediation is not the same as consensus in the larger Wikipedia community. Can you help me find this?--Carlaude ^talk 10:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Carlaude. I think what you're looking for can be found here, specifically the line (near the bottom of the section) that reads "Mediation is not a forum for policy decisions. If the locus of the dispute is not covered by current policy, the matter must be referred to the Wikipedia community as a whole. Under no circumstances will mediation between a small number of parties be substituted for a valid community-wide exercise in consensus building." - Hope that helps! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

For your viewing pleasure >> User_talk:Pete_Postlethwaite   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Are your ears burning?

Hi Ryan, your name has come up as a precedent for using caustic/humourous block notices on user talk pages. You can find the discussion here. Could you comment on your historical use of these notices and whether you would still advise that such usage is appropriate? You would of course be well-served by reading the other subsection above, where the dispute was first raised, but I bet you already knew how to do that. ;) Thanks! Franamax (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Date relinking by Avalon

Hi Ryan. Could you please have a look at the editing activities of Avalon (talk · contribs) (e.g. this edit—which is just one of many). There is an awful lot of date-relinking going on. Is that okay in the current climate? Thanks.  HWV258  03:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I've noticed this, too. I'd be pleased for a nice note to be left to back up the injunction. Tony (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Jenah Doucette

I have nominated Jenah Doucette, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenah Doucette (3rd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 14:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to tell 1989luke (talk · contribs), per this edit, not Ryan who merely created the initial redirect. Bencherlite^Talk 14:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

• Book review :Review of Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
• News and notes: License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
• Wikipedia in the news: In the Google News, London Review of Books, and more
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemistry
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate Forum

Ryan, I found you from the Formal Mediation page. I'm not sure if that is the correct forum for my problem, so I'm asking your advice so as to not waste resources by filing formal mediation.

The issue is that in the past I was found guilty of being a sock (yes, I know that was poor judgement), but have now repented and am a new user. The issue is that as a new user, this one admin keeps blocking me saying that I was a sock. I'm not aware of any wiki policy that says "once a sock, you are forever banned from wiki". So I would like to file a request to have this problem looked at so the admin will cease blocking my new usernames. Thanks. Farmhouse0000 (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Obama articles

Please see this. Thanks, Paul August ☎ 14:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

RfAR Archives

Hi Ryan - I'm trying to find the arbitration archives - I'm sure there used to be a list of all the old cases, but I can't find it for the life of me now - can you point me in the right direction? Thanks --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index. MBisanz ^talk 16:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Date unlinking bot RFC open

I know you are busy, but I thought I should let you know that the bate unlinking bot RFC is open. Wikipedia:Full-date unlinking bot, RFC on the talk page. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

• Special report:Study of vandalism survival times
• News and notes: Wikizine, video editing, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia impacts town's reputation, assorted blogging
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment

Thank you for reorganising the comments in this section. I'll follow the pattern you've established in future. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated Chris - thanks for understanding. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

something to remember

19411. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Your warnings concerning the bot RFC

Ryan, my understanding of the restrictions on "related discussions" is that they refer to the style-guide talk pages alone, not to infringements on broader participation. Otherwise, those editors wouldn't be able to discuss style-related issues on an article talk page (whereas they are restricted, in articles themselves, only from reverting edits on style-related matters where the reversion is not wholly covered by the style guides). Nor could they discuss style-related issues on their own talk pages. Nor could they review featured articles or lists, where it is almost impossible to contribute while stepping around matters of style. I do believe SilkTort has no status to issue wide interpretations of remedies, nor to second-guess what arbitrators intended. I'm taking this up with the Coordinating Arbitrator now. Tony (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This is actually precisely what the remedy was trying to stop. I don't think discussing style issues on article talk pages is a problem in the slightest. The remedy refers to any meta style discussion. In this case, the bot RfC is clearly a meta style discussion. The hope from the arbitrators was that this remedy would stop the flame wars occurring in these community discussions. This is a community discussion about style and it's exactly what the the arbitrators intended to stop. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• And they think “flame wars” were caused (or will be caused) by me adding my vote to an RfC I didn’t help craft? Do they think that by restricting me from participating in a vote, that whole RfC won’t happen? This is absurd. “Incivility” occurred when I participated in style-guide debate with a disruptive editor (Locke) who knew how to pull everyone’s strings. The simple solution was to place a restriction on me from participating in those venues on that subject; not by declaring that an RfC constitutes a “flame war” if my vote is there along with scores of others. Greg L (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The remedies in question are not limited in scope to only to the talk pages of guidelines; if they were, then they would have been worded similarly to the proposed remedy #9.4 ("prohibited from editing any policy or guideline page related to article or editing style, as well as the talk pages of those policy or guideline pages"). The intent of the remedy was, indeed, to prohibit the editors in question from participating in discussions about style guidelines everywhere—whether those discussions take place on the guideline pages, on an RFC, in the featured article process, or anywhere else in the project.

I would, in principle, be willing to allow an exception to be made for the talk pages & review pages of articles to which these editors were significant contributors, in order to make it easier for them to work on their own articles of interest; but, certainly, a community-wide discussion of how style guidelines should be written or enforced is pretty much the textbook example of what they're banned from. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• So is the intention to bar us from engaging other editors on style matters on their talk pages too? Ohconfucius (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

• News and notes: Jackson's death, new data center, more
• Wikipedia in the news: Google News Support, Wired editor plagiarizes Wikipedia, Rohde's kidnapping, Michael Jackson
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOCK alert

I think a Wikipedia:CheckUser will reveal that User:SCFilm29 is a WP:SOCK. Odd behavior, dubious edits, talk page comments, etc. Thanks in advance. Coronerreport (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Flameviper review

Hi Ryan, just to let you know that I've started a review of the flameviper ban at AN#Flameviper review. Just thought you might like to know since you were involved with him in the past. By the way, just read your userpage, are you a sucker for punishment or what?! Another degree - you're a perpetual student. I thought I was bad but that's hardcore! :D Hope you're well. Cheers, Sarah 07:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

• News and notes: Commons grant, license change, new chapters, usability and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia and kidnapping, new comedy series
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Food and Drink
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ryan Postlethwaite. You have new messages at Verbal's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Verbal chat 13:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I added a comment before noticing the green box at the top of the case (I didn't realise it had been moved, etc). Sorry about that. Is it ok for me to remove it, I'd rather do it myself if that's ok. Verbal chat 13:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, please go ahead and remove it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Done - sorry about that! Verbal chat 13:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA

Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 22:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Prem Rawat4

Further to Steve Crossin's request to extend privilege to the participants in this mediation, I've opened a MedCom case here and requested Steve to contact the participants to invite them to join. I trust I've done this properly. I'm not sure whether you would wait until they have all signed on before officially accepting or whether, given the special circumstances, you would accept right away (but am confident that you will know, since you are our fearless leader) :) Sunray (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks Sunray. I think it's important that all the parties still accept the mediation before we proceed as that's the most important issue in my opinion. I presume they will do, but I still think it will be good to just double check things. Thanks for getting this up and running - I had mentioned you were interested in acting as a co-mediator and it's good to see you've been discussing this with him already. Hopefully with your experience and Steve's determination we might have a fighting chance at solving this dispute once and for all! Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

All ten participants have now signed their acceptance in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 4. I believe that we are all set if you will accept the case on behalf of the committee. Thanks. Sunray (talk) 07:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Accepted. Hope all goes well! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Userpage image

• I'd like to know why anyone who is supposed to be reasonable, adult and mature person would expect others to take them seriously when they (as you do) have graphic depictions of penises on their user page. It's extremely offensive to me. Or doesn't that matter to you? I complained about his several months ago and no one seemed to think it was a problem. I'm not sure why you think it's appropriate to have X-Rated photos of male genitalia on your userpage, but what do you think about a child who might innocently clicke on your page? Also, why is it that you, Ryan, think (I presume) that you could possibly be a mediator (or anything in any position of power) on Wikipedia while you display no sensitivity at to others here? Is that not uncivil? Additionally, there are definitely people on Wikipedia who are victims/survivors or child sexual abuse (they are everywhere) who may be severely emotionally triggered by innocently clicking on your "Schlong barnstar" on your userpage. What are you thinking? Is this just a joke to you and your pals? All I ask is that you think about the implications of what you display here, your personal credibility, and what such a thing says about you personally. I am asking for an answer to the question. A real answer. Either you're an adult or you're not an adult. Which is it? I await your response. My greatest concern if for the children who may be surfing wikipedia. Think about children. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your concern Sylviecyn. Firstly, I can't see where you've expressed this to me before (I've gone through your contributions for this account and your old one as stated on your userpage). TO the main issue, I have previously had one person come to me with concern about this, so I put it in a collapsible box. It's not meant to be offensive to anyone. If you like, I'll put a disclamer on the top of the collapsible box to make people aware of the image that is present. Whilst I respect your opinion on this matter, I'm not going to remove it from my userpage. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for the laugh :-) Best that I don't comment further. --Zanthorp (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

the swine

Thanks for your best wishes on my talk page, Ryan. If only I'd ignored my doctor's advice not to bother with the general flu innoculation, a month ago. It would have lessened the severity of the illness. Tamiflu might be OK if taken as soon as bad flu is evident, although it has limited effect, I believe. But heck, you're a pharmacist—what am I telling you for?! Tony (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I never did set much store by those flu vaccines... Dabomb87 (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Try telling that to my mother - she thinks it's the miracle we can't live without. It's only really useful if you take it before you get symptoms - to do that though you have to know you've been exposed. The side effects of Tamiflu can be quite nasty as well - I'll probably take it should I think I've been exposed to it or I act quickly when I get very early symptoms but I don't think it's important to have in stock. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

• T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
• WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
• WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
• WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
• WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing again?

Ryno are you back properly? I need your help with something, shoot me an email if you're game. A Train^talk 08:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Message from Elad189

Ryan hello, How can I talk to you please? It's urgent! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elad189 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

• From the editor: Welcome to the build-your-own edition of the Signpost
• Board elections: Board of Trustees elections draw 18 candidates for 3 seats
• Wiki-Conference: Wikimedians and others gather for Wiki-Conference New York
• Wikipedia Academy: Volunteers lead Wikipedia Academy at National Institutes of Health
• News and notes: Things that happened in the Wikimedia world
• Wikipedia in the news: Assorted news coverage of Wikipedia
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Oregon
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 12:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Meetup

A meetup is taking place in Manchester if you are interested. Majorly talk 18:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ryan Postlethwaite. You have new messages at Griffinofwales's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Discussion about Jimbo's talk page Griffinofwales (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You are my hero

What kind of barnstar do you want for hard protecting Jimbo Wales' talk page? Hahahave a great weekend! JBsupreme (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Block of User:Griffinofwales

Unhelpful. If the advice I gave him, and which he followed, was unhelpful, you should take it up with me, not him. I'm hopeful of getting some sleep shortly, so your window for discussion is limited. Rodhullandemu 00:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

He's the one that made the edit. He should have known better than to carry on the exact same edit war after the protection had expired. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"Don't worry, I will be checking your logs Rod to make sure this is a one off - should I find any other instances I can assure you I'll take this further." I somehow don't think you'll find any admin who hasn't made a dodgy block or unblock, however long or hard you look. However, to be fair, you would have to compare my block log against a representative sample and apply some sort of ANOVA to determine whether mine is out of the ordinary. But I know that it isn't; it's called "experience". You know, when I was doing my Ph.D, I actually didn't have that much spare time. If you have, please feel free to waste it. Rodhullandemu 00:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

• News and notes: WMF elections, strategy wiki, museum partnerships, and much more
• Wikipedia in the news: Dispute over Rorschach test images, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Proactive request

• Sathya Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article could use the assistance of one or more mediators experienced with particularly controversial topic areas, as well as the attention of one or more uninvolved administrators. There is a typical pattern of long talk page posts, sprawling policy disputes that often take on an overall "wikilawyerish" tone, stagnant progress, and little administrative oversight. There were two arbitration cases centered around this article/topic: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2. Any assistance you can provide in finding editors to fill the mediator and administrator roles for the Sathya Sai Baba topic would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --Vassyana (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Vassyana, I've left a note on the talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for such a proactive response to my proactive request! :-) PhilKnight has offered to take up the role of an uninvolved administrator to oversee the area. Between the two of you, I could hardly think of better hands for the topic. If I can help in any way, in this or another topic, please let me and I'll do my best to return the favor. Be well! --Vassyana (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Request

Article: Sathya Sai Baba

Dispute: Some editors are preventing the 'Reliable Source noticeboard recommendation' from being implemented.

RS discussion: Discussion on removing 2004 BBC material which became questionable after a 2006 Superior Court Trial Verdict.

I request your help in implementing the recommendations made in the Wikipedia Reliable Source Notice board.

Here's quick update about the discussion.

• Alaya Rahm made sexual abuse allegations on Sathya Sai Baba in BBC and other documentaries in 2004. Later in 2006 Alaya Rahm filed a case on Sathya Sai Baba society in 'Superior Court of California'.
• In the trial they found that Alaya Rahm had used illegal drugs during his allegation interviews to BBC and others TV documentaries.
• The Daily Pioneer article reported that "Sathya Sai Baba Society brought a strong witness 'Mr Lewis Kreydick' who filed testimonies disproving Alaya Rahms allegations. The Daily Pioneer reported that Alaya Rahm self dismissed his case on the same day.
• Trial ended with the verdict that Alaya Rahm cannot file another lawsuit on Sathya Sai Baba in US or in India. Alaya Rahm monetary claims were also rejected.

Important part was that trial did not find any wrong doings by Sathya Sai Baba.

Proof of the trial and verdict: The Superior Court of California website has public record of this case.

Secondary Source: Daily Pioneer published a detailed article about this trial.

I took this issue about how the article continue to accuse Sathya Sai Baba sourced to BBC of serious allegations inspite of the 2006 trial making BBC claims questionable. It was discussed for a week by 4 experienced neutral wikipedians from outside this article.

• 3 of them said that generally BBC is considered reliable but since the 2006 trial verdict made the BBC allegations on Sathya Sai Baba questionable the BBC material should be removed from the article due to BLP concerns.
• Also they agreed that 'Daily Pioneer' article can be used as the secondary proof for the trial as we have the 'Court documents from the Superior Court website'.

Disputed Content: The first paragraph under the Criticism is written based on the old 2004 BBC / Seduced documentary sourced to Alaya Rahm sexual abuse allegations. Also 2004 BBC documentary was made with 'Alaya Rahm allegations as the central theme of the documentary'. As per the recommendation this material has to be removed. Some editors in this article who have WP:COI are not letting me execute the reliable source notice board recommendations. I seek your help in this case.

'Reliable Source Noticeboard Discussion:' http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question

Let me know if I should move the above discussion to the mediation section under 'Sathya Sai Baba talk page.

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ryan, I was wondering why I have n't heard anything from you. Anyway I spoke to User:PhilKnight - here is the discussion from his talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PhilKnight#Help_Needed. I am still wondering why we need to go to mediation for implementing Reliable Source noticeboard recommendation? Your inputs in this matter will be appreciated. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: ROC mediation

I guess you could close it. I never got any activity from the parties to the mediation and that was months ago. There's no use trying to mediate if they aren't interested in participating. Andre (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

• Special story: Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community
• News and notes: Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

IRC

Hi Ryan, would you mind granting me access to en-admins? I had access before as "AmeIiorate" but that account has been inactive for about 8 months. My IRC account is "carlin". Cheers, ♣ Ameliorate! 14:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What should I do if one side denies mediation?

Hi there,

I'm contacting you as the chair of mediation and hoping that you can point me in the right direction. There is currently a dispute in progress on the IRA page about how the introduction should be worded. There was an edit war and then the page was locked and now one side insists that here can be no discussion until a certain sentence is removed, while the other side refuses to have that sentence removed until consensus is reached on what will replace it. I have asked if the participants would be amenable to Mediation, and the response has been negative. I am not sure what the next step is. The issue with sending this to arbitration is that it's still primarily a content dispute. So I am not sure what to do.

Any help you can offer to advice you can send on where to ask would be more than appreciated! Lot 49a^talk 18:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please Lot49a stick to the facts! It's one sentence that was put in by an editwarring POV pushing IP. You are the one that now wants to re-write the Lead! No one disagrees that the sentence is misleading! No disagrees that the source dose not support the sentence! If you can not get your head around them facts, how could you possibly be the self appointed chair of mediation! No one has a problem with discussion on replacing the sentence, but the Admin who locked it insists that they will not remove the sentence untill it is agreed what we replace it with! Any unbiased editor who reads the discussions will see it is just pig headedness at this stage. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

• From the editor: Where should the Signpost go from here?
• Radio review: Review of Bigipedia radio series
• News and notes: Three million articles, Chen, Walsh and Klein win board election, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Reports of Wikipedia's imminent death greatly exaggerated, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

A Request For Advice

I would like to offer my services to the mediation cabal. Therefore, if I may ask, I would like to know what the best way to go about it is.
Respectfully,
--NBahn (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nbahn. If you would like the services of the mediation cabal, then you need to go here and follow the instructions for filing a case. If you need any further help, please ask. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Portal:England

England has been nominated for a featured portal review. Portals are typically reviewed for one week. During this review, editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the portal from featured status. Please leave your comments and help us to return the portal to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, portals may lose its status as featured portals. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

AE question

Hi, I've come across Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles (from the talk page notice on a Troubles article) where you mentioned "the topic 1RR restriction", which doesn't seem to be explained on that page, though I note an editor was blocked for it in Feb 09. Where should I be looking for details of that? Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 19:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Rd232. Could you link to where I've said about the 1RR restriction? I can't seem to find where I said it so it might help to give me some context. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's right at the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. Rd232 ^talk 22:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes - in that case, Rlevse placed the whole topic on probation and enforced a universal 1RR restriction on the topic due to some serious disruption there. All his remedies can be found here. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to make a general comment, the remedy in the case allows uninvolved administrators to place any editor that edits disruptively to be placed under probation (the remedy that states that can be found here). The terms of the probation states that this can include 1RR restrictions for individual editors so I would say that there is no 1RR restriction in place unless an editor has been informed that they have been placed under probation. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. Rd232 ^talk 22:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

• News and notes: $500,000 grant, Wikimania, Wikipedia Loves Art winners
• Wikipedia in the news: Health care coverage, 3 million articles, inkblots, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Republic of China 2

I don't know if it makes any difference whether a mediation is considred "successful" or "unsuccessful", but I would say the mediation for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Republic of China 2 was successful. The "lack of interest" resulted from a consensus being put in place. Readin (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. As far as the close was concerned, I simply closed it as stale because there was little interest and very little actual mediation occurred. I'm pleased that the end result is that the dispute has been resolved. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Exception for Archives

I have proposed a COI exception here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Archives

Comments welcome. Keith Henson (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

RCC Mediation request

Please reconsider your deletion at least of the main page; it was done in Wikipedia space, and was part of the public record. I believe all the Arbs are admins, and will be able to see it anyway. What should be confidential is the proceedings at the actual mediation, for which MedCom (quite rightly) has its own wiki; my understanding of the major issue here is that a relatively small number of Wikipedians took a decision in private and are now claiming it to be WP:Consensus when other users can neither see the decision nor be convinced by its reasoning. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The mediation was all done on-wiki - there was no private discussion from any of the parties as part of the mediation process. The main mediation took place on the talk page and the main mediation page was only used for the formalities (acceptance and definition of the issues to be mediated). The MedCom wiki isn't even up at the minute and hasn't been for some time. The privileged nature of mediation means that the proceedings for formal mediation can't be used against any of the parties or in discussion during other dispute resolution methods. As a committee, we readily delete whole request pages at the first sight of them being used against parties. As this was being quoted to try and get the Arbitration Committee to accept the case I took the step of deleting the page because it went against the privileged nature of mediation. It's true that the arbitrators could see the page if they so wished (we can't stop them doing that), but they couldn't use any of it in their decisions and couldn't even allude to it on-wiki (which they know). I'm sorry Pmanderson, but I'm not going to be restoring the page. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable. If the main mediation was on-wiki, the citation of it in naming disputes is less regrettable. When did they crash? I was involved in a brief mediation not long ago. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I went to try and use it a couple of months back and it was down and it hasn't been fixed yet (apparently it had been down for a while then as well) - we hardly ever used it anyway, it was only when the parties requested it (we might have had about 1 case a year). By far the majority are done on-wiki. There's major problems with doing the mediation in a different place - the parties tend to lose interest quickly and forget to check the page. It's so much easier when you have your watchlist to remind you! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, is it your position that the mediators' actions during mediation are not subject to review, either? Gimmetrow 23:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Mediators actions during the mediation are subject to review. If you have a concern about a mediator then please feel free to email me directly (ryanpostlethwaitehotmail.com) and I'll look into the complaint. I would say however that mediators actions are subject to review from other Mediation Committee members, not the Arbitration Committee. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 08:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there any source for your position that mediator actions during mediation are not subject to review by arbitration? Gimmetrow 09:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, you can go and ask Jimbo if you like - he set up the committees. The Mediation Committee has its own internal procedures for dealing with misconduct from its mediators (in a similar way the Arbitration Committee has similar procedures). Since the committees were formed, they've always been kept separate with neither regulating the other - this is because it's extremely important for both committees to operate completely separately in order to get desirable outcomes (i.e. if parties to mediation thought that the Mediation Committee was subject to review from the Arbitration Committee they might not give an honest and frank attempt at solving the dispute). Fortunately, so far only very minor complaints have come to the attention of the committee and these have been dealt with by discussing it with the mediator concerned and figuring out ways they can better deal with situations. Should something serious come to the attention of the committee, we would investigate it fully with the possibility of the mediator in question being suspended or removed entirely from the committee. This is all hypothetical of course because I'm not sure what concerns you have. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I observed bias during the mediation in two significant ways. Sunray started early with a particular application of a guideline that seemed inappropriate. During mediation there were heated comments, and Sunrry consistently avoided warning editors aligned with Sunray's interpretation. Sunray, at various points, stifled discussion and continues to do so post-mediation, where Sunray is enabling the same editing patterns from the same editor who inserted the text that led to the mediation in the first place. At the arbitration request, I mentioned the possibility that Sunray had off-wiki communication with some of the mediation participants; Sunray's lack of denial is tantamount to an admission of guilt. I can provide more details on some of this, if necessary. Gimmetrow 14:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Brosnan_us

I don't know what it is. What am I supposed to do about that?—SpaceFlight89 15:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Indonesia at WP:FPR

• Portal:Indonesia at WP:FPR

Are you going to work on this? Cirt (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I am doing well, thank you. I'll leave a note to keep it open a bit longer. Cirt (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

Ryan Postlethwaite, Acalamari has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Acalamari 17:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Your Image

Aren't you supposed to avoid that stuff while editing? :P Glacier Wolf 03:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Facebook

Dude, I think someone has compromised your Facebook account. Either that, or there's a side of you that you've never made public before. howcheng {chat} 23:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's quite sweet; the whole world should be as honest and open as Ryan's being now. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear! Shouldn't have left my facebook logged in whilst having a bbq! I also probably shouldn't have had so much to drink - very rough today, very rough indeed.... Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

See email

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden

Hi Ryan. I've just put this back on semi-prot - we've already had vandalism on there and the extensive protect log suggests that it's basically continuously happening. Hope that's okay :) - Alison ^❤ 23:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Alison - no problems from me. Hey, at least we tried :-) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for Participation in Wikipedia Research

Ryan Postlethwaite,

Your Request for Adminship (RfA) process was reviewed and studied by our research team at Carnegie Mellon University early in our project to gain insights into the process. We reviewed what voters discussed about your case, and what qualifications you brought to the table as a candidate. In total 50 cases were personally read and reviewed, and we based our further research questions in part on your case.

In continuing our research, I would like to personally invite you to participate in a survey we are conducting to get perspective from people who have participate in the RfA process. The survey will only take a few minutes of your time, and will aid furthering our understanding of online communities, and may assist in the development of tools to assist voters in making RfA evaluations. We are NOT attempting to spam anyone with this survey and are doing our best to be considerate and not instrusive in the Wikipedia community. The results of this survey are for academic research and are not used for any profit nor sold to any companies. We will also post our results back to the Wikipedia community.

This survey is part of an ongoing research project by students and faculty at the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science and headed by Professor Robert Kraut.

Take the survey

Thank you!

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free comment on my talk page.

CMUResearcher (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Two weeks

It has been two weeks now without a reply to my query. Do you intend to reply? Gimmetrow 12:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies - I've just been moving back to uni so my time has been very limited. I've forwarded your concerns onto the rest of the committee and we'll offer a reply within the next 3 days. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you speaking of this query? Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

• From the editor: Call for opinion pieces
• News and notes: Footnotes updated, WMF office and jobs, Strategic Planning and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wales everywhere, participation statistics, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Video games
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

• Opinion essay: White Barbarian
• Localisation improvements: LocalisationUpdate has gone live
• Office hours: Sue Gardner answers questions from community
• News and notes: Vibber resigns, Staff office hours, Flagged Revs, new research and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Stunting of growth, Polanski protected and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Occupation of the Baltic states

Hi! Can you please restore this page, which consists of a rejected meditation cabal? It is needed to present evidence of failed attempt on dispute resolution in an ArbCom case.--Dojarca (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba article

Sathya Sai Baba is a living person, who lives in a small city called "Puttaparthi", in South India, state of Andhra Pradesh. Thousands of people gather everyday to see him, in a place called Sai Kulwant Hall, inside a complex called "Prasanthi Nilayam", where Sai Baba's residence is located. This people believe he is a saint.

On the other hand, there is a group of people who believes he is a criminal.

So, we have two radically opposite points-of-view.

The article in Wikipedia is being used by the group with the "anti-Baba" point-of-view to do theirs propaganda. This group is engaged in a strong effort to avoid the article to be a truly representative of NPOV.

Currently, the article suffers from:
- lack of NPOV
- offends Basic Human Dignity
- suffers from Information Supression

Link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba

In the brief description of the case, above, I myself have assumed a neutral point-of-view.

Below, a link to my first comment about the article. There, I write with my own POV feelings, but using NPOV arguments, so neutral editors could follow and, with common sense, agree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#What_if_Sai_Baba_is_really_an_Avatar.3F

But, after that, I found many unpleasant things:
- trying to edit results in "removal of large-scale vandalism", and the edit vanishes from the history; (thus, the history itself is biased)
- there is an editor, "White adept", acting as policeman to maintain biased, not-NPOV status quo;
- there is another user, "Andries", faking a positive POV; (thus, you are mislead)
- their combined actions drive anybody who arrives to read all negative-POV references;
- also, they managed a pack of ready-made arguments that classifies the huge amount of positive-POV references as "not reliable";
- making, in this way, extremely difficult, if not impossible, to restore or improve the article's quality.

This article constitutes a very serious issue for Wikipedia itself. Millions of people around the world support Sai Baba's efforts (six million, in the negative-POV estimate; from 50 to 100 millions, in the positive-POV estimate). The current article is an offense not only to Sai Baba himslef, but also to all of them.

Thank you.

Moved from your userpage

I tried to use the mediation window but couldn't. My concern is simply that the article "Pro Se Litigation in the United States" is missing essential information. Most particularly the Rules of Conduct for U.S. Judges and its changes in March 2009 that affect pro se litigants. This information has been deleted and should be available to the public

The current code of conduct for United States Judges requires "A judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or the person's lawyer full right to be heard according to law". On March 17, 2009, a new code, going into effect on July 1, 2009, was announced requiring "A judge should accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, and that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law." The wording was changed from a person "or" their lawyer to a person "and" their lawyer.[8][9][10]

Cooling my jets

Hello, Ryan Postlethwaite. You have new messages at Greg L's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Least restrictive interpretation

Hello, Ryan Postlethwaite. You have new messages at Greg L's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TB

Hello, Ryan Postlethwaite. You have new messages at Allstarecho's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.