User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:41, 11 September 2008

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

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Singapore Airlines#Opening statements

Thanks for posting on my talk page about the above. I feel I should point out to you the following, User_talk:Huaiwei#Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation.2FSingapore_Airlines.23Opening_statements. The "I'll reply as I see fit" is IMO a tactic, as was used at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-02-22_Singapore_Airlines with no replies in over a month. I'll let you draw your conclusions in regards to this, and what steps to take. Cheers --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 10:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, as seven days have now passed from notifying all editors for their opening statement, and taking into account the above, and WP:RFM stating that editors need to provide responses within 7 days, I would ask for the RFM to continue to take place without User:Huaiwei; although he would be bound by the results of any consensus which comes as a result of the RFM. Given the extra retorts he has provided on his own talk page, his own contributions, and his interjection on my talk page on matters not pertaining to him or this issue, and his reinsertion of same comments after I removed them (all the while reminding him he needs to attend to the RFM), it can only be assumed that he intends on dragging this out for as long as possible, and that in my mind is not acceptable. If 11 out of the 12 editors can find 30 seconds to provide a statement which would allow this RFM to proceed, and given the extra-curricular editing done by Huaiwei, then said editor could also find those 30 seconds. The process can not be allowed to be drawn out (after some 18 months) because one editor believes they can respond when they "see fit"; this has occurred in the past, and is why we are now at RFM. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with that. I've given Huaiwei a final 24 hours to make his statement. Without that, we'll continue regardless. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ryan, there's been no response from Huaiwei on the RFM. Any chance we can move ahead and get it started now? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 12:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A favor

Hi Ryan. I was wondering, as you are clerking the Piotrus 2 case (correct me if I'm wrong), could you have a look and refactor comments made by greg park avenue, or ask him to? He wrote I don't bother with our Lithuanian friends - they were pals or allies of us polacks since centuries - we always get along and will find common ground, mind just Boody and his obvious supporters/sockpuppets who seem to play Jew but they don't sound like that. My impression is they try to impersonate the negative stereotype of Jewish people. I'm not sure how many policies that violates at once. If I stretch AGF to its absolute breaking point, I can convince myself it's only very poor, very offensive communication and not outright antisemitism. Even so, I think it would be best to refactor. Any help much appreciated. IronDuke 23:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I've asked Greg to refactor his comment. If he doesn't, I'll refactor for him. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, much appreciated. IronDuke 02:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He does not seem to have edited for days. Would it be possible for you to refactor at some point in the near future? I don't want to nag (and tell me if I am), but I feel strongly the remarks have been in place far longer than they ought to have already. IronDuke 01:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal request on this matter

Ryan--thanks for stepping in re Greg park avenue. Note though, if you look at his "evidence," it consists almost entirely of offensive, off topic ranting, largely directed at me. In addition to the anti-semitic parts which rightly should be refactored, Greg (who does little else on WP beside posts such rants, often directed against me) accuses me of sock puppetry (which he has done half a dozen times in the past with zero evidence presented), in between his rambling and vulgar rants. I'm frankly fed up with his garbage; I've apologized for my unkind email sent a while back in frustration at having to endure this sort of abuse without relief. And note that the editor who received that email had in the past threatened to block me simply because I had dared to remove a similar Jew-baiting, BLP-violating rant by Piotrus' ally Greg Park Avenue.

I'm asking at this point that the entire, fairly useless and vulgar posting by Greg park avenue be zapped and he be given the chance to post something that might perchance be uncharacteristically civil. Thanks Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 01:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Please note that this isn't the first time that Greg park avenue has publicly interspersed his antisemitic rants with his perverse little theory that I am somehow impersonating a Jew; he's been spewing this garbage for months. It needs to stop--now. Cheers, Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 03:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but reading through the entire original thread which includes Boodlesthecat's accusation of antisemitism ("Can you justify that anti-semitic comment [1] with a list of "Jews who are tired of Thane Rosenbaum?" Boodlesthecat Meow? 12:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)"), referred to above as a "Jew-baiting, BLP-violating rant", there is nothing in Greg park avenue's comment that is anti-Semitic. Read through the entire conversation and find exasperation at Boodlesthecat's contentions? Yes. Anti-semitic? No. Taking editorial disagreements and painting your opposition as an anti-Semite, Hitlerite, Jew murdering ethnicity, etc. (I've gotten some of those myself) would be libelous accusations elsewhere. On WP such accusations are indulged with rarely any consequences to the accuser unless they are so over the top as to be nonsensical. Garbage in, garbage out. Improve the tone and quality of the conversation and the situation might improve. Instead, we shop for editors to suck into WP:BATTLES. —PētersV (talk) 05:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to concur. I've asked Vecrumba to comment, on the chance I was missing something. I've asked Boody on his talk page several times to explain clearly what is anti-semitic in greg comment's, he refused, simply repeating that greg makes antisemitic remarks. If I were to substitute the word "Jew" to "Pole" in greg's cited diffs, I wouldn't call him anti-Polish. I find Boody's accusation of antisemitism a much more serious issue than greg usage the word "Jew". PS. I don't fully agree with greg's arbcom comment, up to and including greg being too emotional and for lack of better words, flowery. But he is no less flowery than several other editors who posted in arbcom, Boody included. I think quite a few statements/evidence sections could use good faith refactoring along with greg, but greg's statement doesn't seem to be a special case. Bringing the unjustified "antisemite" gun into this is a completly different issue, one related to straw man fallacy (and also association fallacy, as argument is made between the lines that anybody who agrees with greg and disagrees with Boody is an antisemite). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, gimme a break you guys. If someone wrote, "So and so (an ethnic Polish person whose parents were in Auschwitz) masquerades as a son of Polish Holocaust survivors" you'd be running to half a dozen boards filing complaints hollering "anti-Polinism!". (Not to mentoion the fits you would have if accused either of you of "imitating" a caricature of a Pole). But Piotrus, if you seriously wanted to understand how anti-semitism manifests itself in discourse, why not bring your inquiries to one of the Jewish issue noticeboards, rather than asking someone who shares you views to comment. That would be a way to actually learn something, rather than continuing your usual method of playing team edit warring politics.. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 13:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come now, if someone (falsely) portrays themselves as a victim when they are not, exactly what is "anti-" that person's ethnic background to point that out? That's a ridiculous contention. —PētersV (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration is an area where users are somewhat free in what they are "allowed" to say. The marker set for an acceptable standard is fairly low, primarily to allow all parties to get their full views across. Whilst Greg's accusations aren't really of the best form (e.g. without any actual evidence to back them up), the arbitrators will give them whatever weight they feel they deserve. That said, labelling other editors as Jew like is unacceptable, even at arbitration - that's why I've asked him to refactor just one sentance. My advice to all parties is that the best way to present evidence is to provide diffs, or other firm evidence to put your view across - without these, it's fairly meaningless. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Park avenue greg's accusation of sock puppetry against me ("were reverted by this user or his mirror accounts User:Malik Shabazz or User:Malcolm Schosha etc") with zero evidence provided (other than his fertile imagination) is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL ("Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors.") Unless there is a specific rule in arbitration that allows editors to one can lie through their teeth without penalty, I would like that refactored too. The rest of the stuff can stay cuz it's kinda funny. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to ask him to refactor it. If he's made accusations without evidence, the arbitrators will give it no weight at all. It would be in his best interests to back it up, or the comment is meaningless. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it was mainly to give Greg one more chance to retain an iota of credibility. Boodlesthecat ^Meow?

In running across Greg park avenue's edits in past travels, I thought this was a fellow New Yorker I'd like to meet in person. The accusations above, upon investigation, have not changed that, and I am not in the habit of fraternizing with people lacking in integrity. "Last shred?" Let's shed the melodrama and return to constructive editing. —PētersV (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider a word Jew an offensive word, just like the word Polish or American are not offensive. Discussing whether an editor has a Jewish (or Polish, or Russian, and so on) POV is perfectly acceptable and is not antisemitic (or anti-Polish, or anti-Russian). Again, I ask - can somebody explain to me in detail what's antisemitic about greg's post? It is somewhat emotional and flowery, as I noted above, but that's completely no different - or likely less offensive - from comments by Boody above, expressing bad faith on the part of Polish editors and suggesting some Polish cabal. While I'd support clerk's action asking editors to be more civil in their statement, I see no point in singling out greg just because what appears as baseless accusation of antisemitism was pointed his way (on the other hand, constant smearing of his character should be addressed and stopped). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have refactored that one sentence Ryan found offensive and explained on my Talk [1] there was nothin anti-semitic in it. To tell the long story short it couldn't be since there is no slightest evidence Boody is of Jewish descent, neither on his User Page nor in his attitude. greg park avenue (talk) 03:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a bad case of Jew on the brain greg. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 03:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Any other antagonistic comments you want to pass Greg park avenue's way? This sort of attitude and expression does nothing to advance constructive dialog. If you weren't out to WP:BATTLE, you would have written a simple thank you not this, quite frankly, saracastic crap. —PētersV (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once more on greg park avenue

Note also this rant threatening an admin with violence (or something unpleasant). Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I disapprove of greg's rather strong worded criticism in the last sentence of his post, which may in this case border on personal attack, and fully support a request to him to refactor this. I've send him an email asking him to do so. On the other hand, I see his attitude no more problematic from the bad faithed attitude Boody displays, and I would expect a warning and request to refactor posts to apply to more than only greg. There is also an important issue of whether greg was baited into his behavior by Boody confrontational attitude over the past few months of their interaction.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Classic, Piotrus. What does my supposed "baiting" of Greg (your own colorful interpretation of my removing some of his hateful, Jew baiting posts) have to do with Greg threatening violence against Jayjg?? And perhaps Piotrus you might want to consider the complete non-sequitorial and counterfactual character of your odd post--If Greg is going to have to refactor his anti-semitic posts, than I will have to refactor my....uh, what exactly? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CABAL, your repeating claims that greg is antisemitic, starting from the very few posts you exchanged, has, I am sure, not improved greg's view of you and of the POV you represent. What you should refactor and apologize for are your repeated claims that greg is an anti-semite, based on your disputed interpretion of his POV. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what WP:CABAL has to do with a single editor's record of anti-semitic commentary, but sorry, I stand by my characterizations of Greg's longstanding hateful comments. His offensive rantings preceded any characterization I made of them. If he has an issue with my "POV", he is free to take any action that suits him. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, there is nothing threatening in the idiom "I would kick your sorry ass. It's a metaphor commonly used in classrooms by teachers, in boardrooms by its members, at any political and assembly meetings, even between co-workers and friends. No reason to refactor this one. greg park avenue (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to say Boodles, I've got absolutely no interest in that - especially considering I'm clerking the case. I'll happily deal with problems on the case pages themselves, but perceived incivility outside of it is nothing to do with me. If there's a problem, I'd suggest taking to WP:AN or WP:AN/I. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BC

Hey Ryan. How' bout closing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/I have blocked Betacommand? It's gone stale anyway and I think there's pretty widespread support to use either of your two solutions. If you place in the RfAr log, maybe you can add a plea for admins to block/unblock with utmost care (like that'll work...) Cheers, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pascal - I've closed out the discussion and notified Betacommand. It's good to see that we finally worked something out! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mew Gull G-AEXF.jpg

Ryan, I accidently uploaded the wrong image (Image:Mew Gull G-AEXF.jpg), Can you help me in getting rid of it? I know it will soon be an orphan image, but it is the wrong image. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I just deleted Image:Percival Mew Gull.jpg as you originally requested - do you want me to restore that, and deleted Image:Mew Gull G-AEXF.jpg? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The right image is now in place on the Percival Mew Gull article; while the one that needs to be deleted is: Image:Mew Gull G-AEXF.jpg – sorry for the miscommunication. The title was still in the MAC memory and I switched the titles by accident. FWIW, thanks for your help here. Bzuk (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I've deleted the Image:Mew Gull G-AEXF.jpg - Do you need anything else restoring or deleting? I'm easily confused! :-) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, nothing for now. Bzuk (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Extremely short article

I've just started an article: Shouting match...but is it so short that it is not acceptable on Wikipedia? -- IRP (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not too short, but it needs sources to show how the term is notable. Has the term been used in any newspapers or other verifiable places? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a "References" section. Is it good now? -- IRP (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to sign in before editing.

Recently, I edited your talk page and forgot to sign in. Can the diff be removed? Also, isn't there a browser add on for Firefox 3 that would automatically sign me into Wikipedia when I visit? -- IRP (talk) 01:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User: Bart Versieck

You may be interested in commenting on a discussion regarding the above noted user here. Cheers, CP 17:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war

The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.

Evidence for the arbitrators may be submitted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence. Evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible.
Your contributions are also welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Park Avenue "refactoring

Is nonsense, and he's mocking everyone here. His "evidence" remains nothing but a nasty personal attack against me (and I am not a party to this arb and only commented when my name came up), and his bogus "refactoring" leaves it still an offensive ethnic rant about me. I want it removed. This twisted BS needs to stop now. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 04:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per your antagonistic commentary, it takes two to clash. —PētersV (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main page redesign

There have been several changes within the Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal, and we are looking froward to you opinion on many of our proposals. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Thank you. MikeHobday (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Hammes Company

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hammes Company. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. CyberGhostface (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible you could unprotect the page and let User:Sharnden try to rewrite it? I feel bad for speedying it now. My original concerns was the WP:COI because single-purpose accounts from the company were editing, but Sharnden is a neutral third party and had been trying to improve the article. I'd even put it on my watchlist to make sure no single purpose accounts worked on it. Thanks.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He can by all means create it in his userspace, and then present it at deletion review. The problem is, the AfD also brought notability concerns up as well - the best place to esablish notability would be in userspace first. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

You are the interested party, how do I re-write the Hammes Company article so it gets approved. Do you think it's not a significant company? I have a hard time believing it is less signifant than many of the companies that already have pages. I look to your guidance to help define how to get an article approved. The latest version of the article that was posted yesterday included sources, was written from a neutral point of view, had relevant external links, and told the story of how Hamme Company has designed two huge parts of American culture. Wikipedia is a very important resource, and having a neutral wikipedia page for Hammes Company would seem appropriate. Please give me any input or ideas. Thank you! Sharnden (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing to do would be to create the article at User:Sharnden/Hammes Company - remember to read the notability guidelines for companies (you should have at least one of the primary criteria satisfied). To show notability, you need to add reliable sources. When you've done this, let me have a look, and if it looks ok we can present it at deletion review. Hope that helps, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK Ryan, I've got the new page up with correct citations and notability. It can be found at User:Sharnden/Hammes Company. Please give your opinion, let me know what I should change if I need to, and feel free to edit if you feel you can help in any way. I appreciate your time, thank you. Sharnden (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems my User:Sharnden/Hammes Company page has been deleted? Do you know why that is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharnden (talk • contribs) 18:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration proposals

Hi, Ryan. I just had a second to take a look at your proposals for the Sarah Palin arbitration case, which I think are a good blueprint to hopefully resolving the situation. The only thing I wanted to point out, though (and you may well have already read this elsewhere), is that at the time the block was made, the policy read that blocking was a course of action to resolve an active wheel war. I think it helps put WilyD's action in a bit more context, but I'm not sure if that has any impact on your proposals, hence my mentioning it here rather than rehashing it there. Take care, user:j (aka justen) 23:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an important point - I'll certainly change it. I don't think it'll change my proposed remedy too much, because I've suggested advice rather than a meaty sanction. It's worth noting in the finding of fact however. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Would appreciate your input here. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dyk

1. Like the "mess" comment 2. Your DYK nom.... make sure there more than 1500 chars of text in the article. Any chance od a pic? Infobox? Well done. cheers Victuallers (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are 1527 characters in the main bulk of text. I'm going to look into getting a pic - I'll have a look on flickr and I'll think about putting an infobox in - I'm just not normally a fan of them! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I stepped on your relist

I had Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Kalb open while deciding whether or not to close it as "redirect" since it already had been redirected. After I decided to do it, I noticed that you had relisted it. One of the drawback of Zman's no script is you can't see if somebody else did something with a nomination before you push the button.

What I should start doing is reloading the nom page before closing it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Jew baiting rant by Greg Park ave on Arb

as well as a ridiculous sockpuppetry accusation here. Why is this abusive troll still allowed to post on Wikipedia, given that his entire output is nothing but bizarre, offensive, personal attacks, groundless accusations, and ethnic rants? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At arbitration, users have more leeway in what is acceptable. Greg's statement is strongly worded, but puts his view across - I'm not suggesting I agree with it, but it's his view. If you believe Greg has a history of making uncivil comments, then you would be best to create an evidence section on Greg showing this. If you believe his arbitration statements are uncivil, you can include them there. After looking at his comment on the evidence page, I've come to the conclusion that I wouldn't create evidence like that, but there's nothing worth getting upset over. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly care if he wants to make a fool of himself, I'm simply baffled that WP tolerates a troll who violates half a dozen civility rules with every post. I've seen editors blocked in a second for a minor comment, yet this troll rants at will with no consequence. So my question remains--Why is this abusive troll still allowed to post on Wikipedia, given that his entire output is nothing but bizarre, offensive, personal attacks, groundless accusations, and ethnic rants? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 04:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 35	25 August 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "George P. Burdell"	News and notes: Arbitrator resigns, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Interview with Mav
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Volume 4, Issue 36	8 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimedia UK disbands, but may form again	WikiWorld: "Helicopter parent"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured topics	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, August
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 175: / Line 175: @@
 as well as a ridiculous sockpuppetry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Evidence#Proof_of_sockpuppetry_User:Boodlesthecat_.3D_User:Malik_Shabazz accusation here.] Why is this abusive troll still allowed to post on Wikipedia, given that his entire output is nothing but bizarre, offensive, personal attacks, groundless accusations, and ethnic rants? [[User:Boodlesthecat|Boodlesthecat]] <sup>''[[User talk:Boodlesthecat|Meow?]]''</sup> 20:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 :At arbitration, users have more leeway in what is acceptable. Greg's statement is strongly worded, but puts his view across - I'm not suggesting I agree with it, but it's his view. If you believe Greg has a history of making uncivil comments, then you would be best to create an evidence section on Greg showing this. If you believe his arbitration statements are uncivil, you can include them there. After looking at his comment on the evidence page, I've come to the conclusion that I wouldn't create evidence like that, but there's nothing worth getting upset over. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<font color="green">Ryan</font> <font color="purple">Postlethwaite</font>]]<sup>See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]</sup>''' 03:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
+::I don't particularly care if he wants to make a fool of himself, I'm simply baffled that WP tolerates a troll who violates half a dozen civility rules with every post. I've seen editors blocked in a second for a minor comment, yet this troll rants at will with no consequence. So my question remains--Why is this abusive troll still allowed to post on Wikipedia, given that his entire output is nothing but bizarre, offensive, personal attacks, groundless accusations, and ethnic rants? [[User:Boodlesthecat|Boodlesthecat]] <sup>''[[User talk:Boodlesthecat|Meow?]]''</sup> 04:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 ==''Signpost'' updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.==