User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite

Archive

Dates:

30/10/2006-07/12/2006 07/12/2006-24/01/2007 24/01/2007-18/02/2007 18/02/2007-02/03/2007 02/03/2007-28/03/2007 28/03/2007-09/05/2007 09/05/2007-31/05/2007 31/05/2007-20/06/2007 20/06/2007-14/07/2007 14/07/2007-13/09/2007 13/09/2007-20/10/2007 20/10/2007-18/11/2007 18/11/2007-20/12/2007 20/12/2007-25/01/2008 25/01/2008-21/02/2008 21/02/2008-13/04/2008 13/04/2008-24/06/2008 24/06/2008-27/08/2008 27/08/2008-13/01/2009 13/01/2009-21/04/2009 21/04/2009-16/10/2009 16/10/2009-25/03/2010 25/03/2010-present

ED

Go to Encyclopedia Dramatica You're on it.

And before you ask: NO! this doesn't mean I'm returning, I'm mooving on (or up, to me) to Fanfiction

—Remember, the Edit will be with you, always. (Sethdoe92) ^{(drop me a line)} 21:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence

As far as I'm aware the evidence I posted was 990 words, the only extension has been responses to comments by others. I was under the impression that responses to comments by others did not come under the 1000 word limit. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 20:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. The word limit is for your entire section, so all responses come within the word limit. Ideally, responses shouldn't even be on the main evidence page, they should be on the talk page so they can be discussed. Some users post responses on the main evidence page to highlight their points and give them more attention - the only downside of that is that you have less space for actual evidence. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved to talk page, all OK? Justin the Evil Scotman talk 20:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent - very much appreciated Justin. Thanks for acting quickly. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate all your efforts to keep the case pages in good order, but could you please let me know what pages I need to consult to make sure I've reviewed all the on-wiki statements and evidence before I post Workshop proposals and a Proposed Decision. Of course, the case page and its talkpage, the evidence page and its talkpage, but has anything been subpaged or moved anywhere else? Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Brad. When I refactor the pages, I move the evidence I've removed to a user subpage and link to it from the evidence section I've removed it from. The evidence is still linked to prominently so it's unlikely you'll miss it. For example; I removed evidence here, placed it at User:Ecemaml/Arbitration evidence and then linked it back to the evidence section here. I don't think it's in my remit to just go around arbitrarily removing evidence so I think this is a better solution. Are you okay with me doing it like this? As I said, it's unlikely you'll miss anything as the evidence is there and well linked to. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As long as I and the other arbitrators can readily find everything, we should be all right. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Full support

While I fully support your block of the editor highking, I am wondering do you mean indef, it says you have done that, he is disruptive but you mentioned 24 hours, I fully understand if you are extending. Block log here Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops - it was only meant to be 24 hours. I'll change it now. Thanks for spotting that! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Theatre Dependere

There were 3 articles listed for deletion. WP:Articles for deletion/Theatre Dependere. I'm wondering why the other two weren't deleted as they are all part of the same AfD. Thanks. Clubmarx (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I missed them - I've gone ahead and deleted both of the other articles as well now. Thanks for pointing it out. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks! Clubmarx (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ryan Postlethwaite. You have new messages at Dusti's talk page.
Message added 17:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dusti^SPEAK!! 17:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ryan Postlethwaite. You have new messages at Dusti's talk page.
Message added 17:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dusti^SPEAK!! 17:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC) X2 instead of spamming your page with TB's. Dusti^SPEAK!! 17:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD

[1]: Somehow you wiped out my submission. Woogee (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I use a script and obviously something went weird. Sorry about that. Is it all fixed now? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the bot which makes sure that all of the steps are followed, took care of it.  :) Woogee (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

HighKing

Ok he got sucked into a edit war and his block was justified, But he has never socked before and the IP concerned is located in Germany not Ireland. I think thats a bad call --Snowded ^TALK 18:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, considering the IP made exactly the same edits HK was making just after he was blocked, it seems clear that the IP was HK. I'll contact a CU though just to double check. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, if he has socked I'll give up on him but it needs to be proved. There are other editors (now blocked) who use IP socks to delete BI so I suspect it was one of them. --Snowded ^TALK 19:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with that, its appreciated --Snowded ^TALK 20:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Howdy Ryan. Would you fix up HighKing's block. It's erroneously set to expire 'tommorow'. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring by User:67.180.84.52

Hi. You declined to block an IP I had reported at AN3, saying that the editor had not continued reverting after the 3RR warning, but it turns out that this is not the case.

My 3RR warning is timestamped at 00:12[2]. The IP reverted at 00:13[3]. Another editor re-instated it at 00:13[4], and the IP reverted the warning for the second time at 00:14[5]. His last (6th) reversion on the article itself was at 00:20[6], 6 minutes after he had reverted the warning for the second time.

You may still feel that a block is not warranted, but I did want to bring this to your attention. Also, this IP has edit warred in this fashion three times in the last couple of days: this current case, the one I reported just beneath it,[7] and here. At the very least, I would think this pattern of editing would merit a warning. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I see - Sorry I missed that. He's been warned sufficiently now - I think it's too stale now to take action. If you see the IP do another revert, ping me again here and I'll take action. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's the fifth revert on the article Wang Guowei

I don't quite know what to do about this editor. They do revert a good amount of straright our vandalism, but they also tag a lot of short articles with PRODs, speedy deletes and AfD, without a lot of regard for those articles which have the potential to grow into something reasonable, and those which are obviously not valuable to the project. When reverted, he has a tendency to blind revert make, he doesn't often use edit summaries, and he routinely deletes warnings form his talk page without comment.

I think what bothers me is a serious lack of judgment about the quality of new articles and his knee-jerk response to being disagreed with. Add that to the fact that the IP jumped into life a week or so ago with apparently full knowledge of how to get around Wikipedia, and I get concerned. I can't spend all my time checking his edits and fixing his mistakes, and yet nothing they do is egregiously bad. I hope that perhaps a short block and a comment from an admin might help them stay on track. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

We've had an exchange on my talk page, but I don't know if it will help any. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it back to my attention - I've blocked them for 24 hours - hopefully they'll chill a little bit after the block expires. Keep me posted. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

• Wikipedia-Books: Wikipedia-Books: Proposed deletion process extended, cleanup efforts

• News and notes: Explicit image featured on Wikipedia's main page

• In the news: Campaign for video, costs of crowdsourcing, iPhone app, brief headlines

• WikiProject report: Percy Jackson Task Force

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Brews ohare, Trusilver, Hell in a Bucket, and my bleeding eye sockets

What in the world is going on with ArbCom? I can't make heads or tails of it! Any chance you get it? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm... where shall I start?!

• Brews ohare was initially topic banned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Remedies.
• Tznkai extended the topic ban (which can be found here) to cover the Wikipedia namespace.
• Brews ohare broke this topic ban and was blocked for a week by Sandstein.
• Trusilver unblocked him early (I think there was only a few hours to go, but he did it because of the principle).
• Trusilver was desysopped for that by ArbCom because last year ArbCom enacted a motion that said administrators were not allowed to reverse aribtration enforcement blocks.
• Hell in a Bucket et al. have been kicking up a fuss left, right and centre about it all. If they'd have been advocating in moderation, it wouldn't have been too bad, but they've taken it to excess. Now ArbCom are voting to ban them for advocating for Brews.

Hope that helps explain things!

Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That's probably the best summary of an unwieldy situation I've ever seen on Wikipedia. That's exactly what I needed and wanted to see, and it clears things up for me quite nicely. Thank you so much! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 01:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The characterization of all that has been said in opposition as kicking up a fuss left, right and centre doesn't quite qualify as “the best summary of an unwieldy situation I've ever seen”, although, on reflection, the bar is not set very high. Brews ohare (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

A bit more detail about the "fuss" would be that it concerns opposition to unwarranted acts by a few officious administrators based upon their poor understanding of vaguely written sanctions, and a myopic letter-of-the-law series of actions that did not consider the welfare of WP or its editing environment. Brews ohare (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

At least fix it

You cut out my first message. It starts with JBsupreme's message now. Phoenix of9 08:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It's fixed. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Phoenix of9

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Zazaban (talk) 08:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Xnacional starting it up again

I don't want to let things get out of hand again, but Xnacional immediately started reverting to his preferred (and incorrect) version when he returned from his block. I've restored the consensus version, but I doubt this is the end of it from him. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

What you've described is an on-going edit war and one which you're still participating. One revert over the issue is an example of "be bold, revert and then discuss", but given you've made multiple reverts yourself, you're still part of the problem. To be perfectly honest, you're lucky you aren't both blocked again. Consider this a warning. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ani

You are being discussed at ANI. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket's reverting and templating

Hi there, is this revert restoring a personal question and this edit involving templating the regulars valid? these three edits seem to imply that my removal of the comment was valid. He also leaves the misleading edit summary, "General note: Refactoring others' talk page comments", which is untrue. I noticed that you received similar behaviour from him. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 273° 15' 0" NET 18:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've sorted things out with Hell in a Bucket, but just to confirm, was my removal valid? Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 278° 49' 15" NET 18:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's amazing what happens when people ask isn't it? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of peace

Would you be willing to back down on the Twinkle issue? I will in turn agree to not do the things I was doing. I've calmed doqn considerably and have decided to take a different course. I will do my best to avoid templating regulars and I do attempt to make amends when I act a little off. I still am upset about the ARB case but life goes on. I still have much I plan to do here and hoepfully it won't be arbcom related. I just figured to ask, all you can do is say no. Either way for the moment I'm actually not going to comment on the whole arbcom thing so as not to completely screw myself over. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fair. You have also done a lot of constructive things with twinkle as well (I just deleted a page you tagged for speedy deletion for instance). Regarding the warnings, it's often more informative to actually type things out yourself so you can explain exactly what your issue with. Warning templates are good for new users, because they help explain particular policies and guidelines - they're very much general spiels of text aimed at a very basic understanding of Wikipedia. When you need to warn a regular editor, they don't need pointers to a general guideline, they need to know specific things that have caused you concern - hence why I think it's best to type out warnings to regular editors. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually that is me blowing my stack. In many ways I wish I had never ran across the Brews Ohare fiasco. It has taken not only from my productivity but has also been something I've allowed to get way too far under my skin. I still think that he has merits but I really need to find better ways to express myself. Amazingly enough I work customer service and the way I talk here is nothinglike how I deal with customers. I'm actually going to try to treat people herre like they were my customers and see if that helps. Sorry for being dickish and thank you for meeting me in the middle. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe people can change ... many times, if necessary. :-) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, we all get passionate about certain things on here and go little over the top - I've done it quite a few times. I guess it's because we all want whats best for the encyclopedia, but we have differing views of what is best. When I get stressed over something, I just click on "unwatch" and move on to other places - I might go back an revisit it after a couple of weeks and I often find I'm in a much better frame of mind to put my point across better. No harm done in this situation if you ask me. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What to do?

Ryan, since you were the last admin to take action on this, I thought I'd follow up with you first. The first thing that User:MidnightBlueMan does on his return from the block is to revert numerous times again (various editors), without discussion. The task force is trying to analyse usage of the term and create guidelines while examining articles in turn. The page was set up to centralize the discussions rather than having debates on numerous Talk page (especially since some editors are less than civil). In the past, we implemented a 1RR policy (policed by admin User:Black Kite) but he retired. Since then, levels of disruption have reached extreme proportions. MidnightBlueMan has been involved in numerous incidents over the past 6 months, is obviously an SPA, and shows no signs of modifying their behaviour. Last time, I reverted MBM and started discussions (which were ignored), but I got blocked anyway (even though I didn't breach 3RR, had asked him to stop and discuss, had asked numerous other editors and two admins to intervene, and finally filed a breach of 3RR report). I can't help but feel more than a little set-upon. So now what? I get the feeling that if I simply revert, I'll end up getting blocked again. So what to do? --HighKing (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a week. Hopefully he should get the message this time that his edits aren't acceptable. Should he continue after this block, the length will be escalated further. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Question.

I am asking about a block you instituted. I'm asking only for clarification really, things to avoid. In my understanding this prevents us from advocating for not speaking about or to the user. Am I wrong? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Basically, you can't discuss him or advocate for him. I don't see a problem with talking to him - that's not discussing him or advocating for him. Let me give you an example; say you're working on an article together, you can discuss edits with him. Should there be a dispute on that article, you wouldn't be able to argue for a position he's taking. Does that clarify things a bit? If you need any more help, then feel free to ask. Generally speaking, you should never have to mention the words "Brews ohare" whilst the restriction is in effect. The edit that Likebox made was a blatant violation of the restriction. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It was pointy. But it just made me curious as to the extent of things. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said, if you need any advice before you post, feel free to leave a message here, or if you want me to look over a draft before you post then by all means email me - I'll let you know whether or not it breaks the restriction. It'll save you getting blocked for merely a technical violation. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer but I highly doubt that I will be commenting on anything close to this for a while. I'm taking a break from it, write a few more articles, only 20 left til I hit 100. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

RFB

Are you interested in becoming a bureaucrat? I feel you meet the criteria and want to nominate you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rin tin tin 1996 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Q?

I missed that, are there rules listed somewhere? Also does this only apply to IP's? I'm not the only one over and I don't see other warnings about third party refactoring of comments at the other involved party's talk. Thanks. 99.135.173.194 (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's in the big pink box on the request for arbitration page. Generally speaking, I don't enforce it if someone goes over by one hundred words, but it's enforced for everyone, not just IP's. Can you point to where someone else is over? I only clerk arbitration pages, I don't clerk individual user talk pages so it's not really my place to look at the refactoring there. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like that restriction applies to the complaint, "State your request in 500 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. You are trying to show the Arbitrators..." It's one thing to say, he did this, that, and the other thing. Another thing completely to respond to that. 99.135.173.194 (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the other large one is at 126% of limit.99.135.173.194 (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's actually for each persons entire section - You get 500 words to make a statement and for your responses to others. Who made the other statement that you're talking about? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The page separates the complainant and his 500 word limit[8] from the person "Responding to a RFAR"[9]. It makes a clear distinction between defining the issue (500 words) and responding to the charges. Maybe the archives will have a clearer answer, I'll take a look there. 99.135.173.194 (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)