User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite

Archive

Dates:

30/10/2006-07/12/2007 07/10/2006-24/12/2007 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 31/06/2007-14/07/2007 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

Am I a troll now

[1]

Are you implying/declaring me a troll? If it is possible, please avoid threads involving me. -- Cat ^chi? 21:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

How the hell do you come up with that ascertation? I removed an IP that was trolling you, that's all - he was attacking you so he got reverted, simple as that. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The team at work

File:Gatitos de moy.jpg

trabajando

hey up! this is for your paw work. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks squeak - I now like cats after seeing a couple of recent pics on the wiki! Raul has a nice collection as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

How I would love to give you one of my now 8 kittens. And with my brother coming to visit next month too. But the reality of rabies is otherwise...... Thanks, SqueakBox 22:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Awwww, I'd love one - would make an excellent addition to the student pad! Can't you get our brother to pack one in his case?! :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 22:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh and thanks for sorting the user page mistake...it was indeed intended for the talk page, and indeed I thought I had moved it myself but you obviously beat me to both the removal from SJ's p[age and the addition at his talk page. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought you'd realise quickly, but I'm a bugger when it comes to fixing things like that - just have to get in there first! Ryan Postlethwaite 22:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

I've added you to to the helper section here: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#Current_Clerks. You need to fix your time zone and also look at the active, inactive, and former clerks lists and pick a letter code to use. Welcome aboard! — Rlevse • Talk • 11:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You've been added to IRC channel #wikipedia-en-arbcom-clerks and kibble (Cbrown1023) should be adding you to our email list. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Malleus

Ryan, ok, I understand and agree that it is wrong to delete or protect a page if you don't know the policy. However, these policies aren't difficult to grasp. There is a certain class of people who one knows are easily smart enough to master these if they choose to, without much doubt. Malleus is one of those. Generally the skills to master complex literature and arrange large texts is more taxing than reading simple policy pages. Hence why article writers can transfer over to the mandarin world better than mandarins to the article building world. Wikipedia is a wreck because, requiring no ability, it has elevated into positions of leadership those who want to mandarin more than article-build. If your concern was that he might use tools in certain areas without comprehending policy, then that I would have more sympathy for it ... but that doesn't look likely. A well-trained peanut could master protection policy, and many have, so why couldn't Malleus? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

But admins do misuse the tools all the time. The deletion policy and blocking policy are not easy to master, we see day in, day out, administrators who do not understand them and make wrong decisions based on inexperience in those areas. Article writing skills are none transferable when it comes to admin tasks - they're not related in any way. Requests for adminship is about people who want the extra tools, and it's expected they know how to use them. Without any evidence on how they are going to be used, I must oppose Malleus because I think there's a real probability he will misuse them by accident because he does not understand situations well enough from an administrative perspective. I'll happily overlook mistakes from candidates who have plenty of experience, but I can overlook a candidate who hasn't even had the possibility of making a mistake because he hasn't participated in the areas that administrators have to deal in. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I'd ask you to think about it more. Writing FAs or just lots of high quality articles requires advanced intellectual skills that are transferable. Rote learning some policy pages in advance of an RfA does not require intellectual skill of anything like the same level. Heck, this is not even what one needs to do; just parrot the comments of admins above in the various relevant pages, and that would furnish your proof. This is not just my weird misguided philosophy btw, it happens to be the recruitment policy of most big companies in the City of London and (to a lesser extent) Manhattan. Good graduates trump non-graduate career pen-pushers of the same age 9 times out of 10. The admins who make mistakes ... well ... I can't comment. Most of the trouble I've witnessed comes from admins who get through on this philosophy, or who got through back in the day when it was easy. If the guy is a wanna be mandarin whose main card is this stuff, fair enough. But Malleus is a content-builder building a good encyclopedia who just wants to be trusted to use a few tools on the rare occasions he needs to use them. That, if you cast your mind back far enough, was the purpose of the position per WP:NBD; not to create a class of petty-minded mandarins unable or unwilling to help build a good encyclopedia, which is pretty much what we got now, or at least where we were heading for a while. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail on the head there (with respect to my thinking on administrators), without knowing so. Our best contributors edit articles, and they create our best content. This is what they're good at, and they don't need the admin tools to do that. Administrators have experience in a different area, they help remove the bad content, and bad contributors so the content writers can get on with their task without trouble. If we didn't have all the mandarins you talk about, and solely had users writing content, we wouldn't be anywhere near the standard we're at today. We'd have vandals runnning riot, and many inappropriate pages lingering around reducing the credability of the encyclopeda. Administrators need to have the experience in the areas that are admin related - they need to understand the blocking policy and all parts of the deletion policy/criteria before getting the tools, or they'll be more of a hinderence than if they didn't have the tools. You bring no big deal into the equation - well, of course adminship is no big deal, but it becomes one if administrators don't have the relevent experience they need to undertake the sysop functions effectively and productively. I don't have strict standards, I just want some admin evidence to look over to make sure they candidate has the right idea. Unfortunately, Malleus has no experience here - he doesn't have any evidence he'll use the tools effectively, and I therefore can't trust him just yet with the block and deletion buttons.

I'm not a huge fan of how some people are trying to turn RfA into a reward to the article writers for their hard work - this is one way that is going to lead to a lot of inexperienced people getting the tools and using them in inappropriate ways. There's a fine line, the best candidates have both article experience and content experience, but it's important that all candidates have at least some of both. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, I can't speak for others, but I am certainly not trying to make adminship a reward for content editors. You'd be well advised for wikipedia's sake not to think like that too, as this philosophy is almost always rooted in actual experience. Content editors make better admins than the other sort. Yes, we need the brute labour that the vandal-zappers offer to keep vandals away ... but that problem is more or less solved. Admins of the type this philosophy promotes do not have the combination of experience-driven perceptiveness, inclination and courage needed to keep bad users away from good users. This simply does not happen as you claim. Most areas of wiki are awash with tendentious POV-pushers who do nothing but drag articles down and waste the time of good users, and there are a whole range of stupid policies which your guys have helped create in the last year or so which make this even worse. Usually, a half-decent surivival instinct or a change of computer and ISP every once in a while keeps them in safety. By definition, a non-admin will not have experience as an admin, and every user who has demonstrated their personal commitment to improving the encyclopedia and their mental ability can be entrusted to comprehend relevant policies before they act on them. Rote learning parroting mandarins cannot be trusted to do anything but act as the slaves of whatever nonsense they think is approved of that current week or whoever is higher up their little prestige tree. Well, that's a bit strong, but I'm sure you understand my point. This perhaps needs more general debate than just this talk page, but there you go. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I respect your opinion but strongly disagree with your account of what an admin should be and especially the labelling of some extremely good admins, just not great article writers as "Rote learning parroting mandarins". Ryan Postlethwaite 22:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I didn't label "extremely good admins" that, but rather, the ones who fit that description. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello there Ryan! I spotted this thread by chance, but thought I'd make a small comment that I agree with Deacon here, and I can't resist sharing that. I've commented in my support for his RFA that Malleus been a challenging user, but I think for the right reasons. I think Deacon makes a great point that Malleus's contributions to projects and articles have been well informed and met certain advanced or even expert standards. Malleus is deeply committed, and from your comments at his RFA, for some reason, I sense there's a chance you might change your opinion. Do you think there is something Malleus could do as a gesture in his RFA that would make you or others be more inclined to support him? --Jza84 |  Talk  01:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey there Jza - good to hear from you. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position where I would change my view - article writing is of course important, it's the main reason why we're here. Adminship doesn't really have much to do with article writing in my opinion and I'll explain why......

Our major content contributors, like Malleus make efforts to take articles to the best they can be (FA and GA standard) - those contributions are much appreciate, but they have little to do with adminship. Admins have to be able to judge articles that come under marginal notability and other reasons set out at the speedy deletion criteria - The content editors often don't see this particular perspective, as they're often concentrating their efforts on the "better" articles. In the case of Malleus, I see no edits at all that shows he understands the speedy deletion criteria - a major aspect of adminship and something that all administrators should know like the back of their hand. He hasn't tagged pages for deletion, nor been involved in XfD debates (which admins are expected to close. Administrators are also able to block other users - they should have experience in areas related to blocking such as WP:AIV, WP:AN/3RR or in other areas where disruption is discussed. Again, Malleus has no experience here. I want to see evidence that Malleus understands these key areas of adminship, but unfortunately, there is none - he hasn't contributed in these places, so I can't be at all sure he knows when and where to use the sysop tools. I hope this helps explain why. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine then, you make a very sound counter-case! I'm aware that I might be a little biased in that Malleus and I have worked fairly closely together for some time now, but from that I know he's competent and conscientious sole. I think Malleus's answers don't do him justice, and he hasn't put his heart into this. Certainly he'd been involved with some localised PRODing (Crompton Primary School being one of his that comes to mind), but, I guess if you're settled on your stance, that's that. As they say, "if you don't ask, you don't get!" I've got my fingers crossed that the level of support for Malleus will have increased at least a little over the next few days.... I must also thank you for your recent support at my RFA; It is greatly appreciated and I won't let anyone down. Thanks again, :) --Jza84 |  Talk  02:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just stumbled across this, and I'd like to say that I fully understand Ryan's concerns. I'm not saying I share them, but I understand them. Around the time of my first RfA I was encouraged to hang out at AfD, which I did for a while, and I took part in quite a few more than the five discussions mentioned. It's true that I haven't nominated many articles for speedy deletion, probably no more than half a dozen, and from memory I think I've only made one report at AIV. I don't say any of this in an attempt to change anyone's mind about anything, just to show that I have no hard feelings about an honestly based oppose. In truth, I'd far prefer it if there was a subset of the admin buttons given to trusted editors (assuming of course that I could get over that hurdle), because I really couldn't see myself getting involved in much of the vandal fighting or blocking in any case. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Account

I use the other account ONLY for what I used it for in this case. If I need to link the two, I will. Opposing that RfA candidate is that important to me. Bellwether ^B_C 02:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Burma wheel war

That event already had a section about it above - I've removed your new section and moved your comment there. I used an unsigned template, but screwed up the spelling somewhere. Probably ought to replace it with your sig. Avruch ^T 02:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I was aware of the other section, but I think a new section was more appropriate given the latest action. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Well, in that case... Do you want me to move it back, or would you rather do it and leave your sig at the same time? Avruch ^T 02:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I've had a play around with it now and you're right, it's probably best as a new section under the original thread. I've added my signature back. Thanks for sorting it out and bring the sig issue to my attention. (you spealt my last name right (one of the first to!) but missed the space out ;-) ) Ryan Postlethwaite 02:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hah, I just had to laugh when I saw the name of this section. I immediately thought of someone coming here and changing it to "Myanmar wheel war". Aah, guess one has to find something humorous in the middle of a painstaking controversy. Best regards, Húsönd 02:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, we have to have a laugh sometimes. I wasn't so much concerned at your moves - I think it should have been moved back to Burma, but you reverted yourself anyway - it's just when other admins started getting involved, I didn't want it to escalate. Hope there's no hard feelings bud. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We have a live one!!

Ahhhh! — Monobi (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My recent RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace and talk space, so that is what I will do. I have made a list and I hope I will be able to get through it. I will go for another RfA in about three month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been about three months. I will not be checking back to this page so if you would like to comment or reply please use my talk page. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 06:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The Great Hunger

There is a consensus among the majority of editors that this article should be moved to the title Irish Potato Famine. An argument continues about the title change on this page by three particularly vocal editors who hold a minority viewpoint. However, given the overwhelming number of editors who agree that the article should be moved to Irish Potato Famine, the name it's best known under internationally, it seems like enough should be enough and an administrator might want to close the discussion and move the page. I see that you are one of the listed mentors. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Ryan Postlethwaite! I'd like to leave a note of appreciation for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully today (and to my surprise) with 83 supports, 4 opposes, and 2 neutral. What I have taken back from my RFA is that I've perhaps been too robust in debate and I will endevour to improve upon that aspect of my usership. I would like to thank you again and state here that I will not let any of my fellow Wikipedian's down. Thanks again! --Jza84 |  Talk  11:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks so much for your support in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hey Ryan Postlethwaite. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. I appreciate your trust. :) Best wishes, —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship Nonsense

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pedophile_topic_mentorship#No.2C_srsly

I'm wondering whether Petra's patently false and damaging accusation towards me deserves place on a "mentorship" page. The dangerous thing about this is that it can actually be believed by someone who does not look at the logs. J*Lambton ^T/_C 21:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"Smell the lawyer's office"

Are you sure that was a legal threat? When I read it, I interpreted it as some kind of reference to wikilawyering. I think it would have been better to shoot after asking questions. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I missed the discussion on Lambton's talk. Thanks. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Not when he was warned earlier this week for another comment that could be seen as a legal threat. He's agreed to retract it now, so I've unblocked. It was clearly meant to scare Petra by suggesting RL action - it wasn't anything to do with wikilawyering. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Bart Versieck

Hello Ryan. If you notice, I provided a link to the last discussion that I and another user (Moondyne) had with him. We told him that if he continued to cause such disruption, we would block him for three months without warning, and he agreed to this. And given how long this has been going (six or seven previous blocks), I don't particularly find it excessive. "Don't edit other people's comments" is not a hard instruction to follow, particularly when you clearly state many times that you understand this and promise not to do it again. Cheers, CP 01:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

But you two between you can't decide to block a user who makes minor infringments (and these latest ones were very minor) for three months. One edit was changing the header, which isn't even technically editing a comment. Would you please knock this back down to a maximum of a week? Ryan Postlethwaite 01:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Then how is this anything but punitive, the very thing that these blocks are meant to avoid? "Every time you do this, we'll block you for a week" - that's a punitive measure. I agree wholeheartedly with Moondyne's comment that his "behaviour just takes too much time and energy away from people who respect this project and it is my belief that your absence won't be a large loss". Bart has sent a very clear message that he does not care about respecting Wikipedia's policies, even after being asked numerous times and pledging constantly to modify his behavior. I just don't see any point to a one week block. Cheers, CP 01:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

But blocking for 3 months, for minor behavioural problems is silly given the fact Bart does some very productive stuff here. I honestly view a 3 month block as punitive. Would you prefer we take this to WP:AN to get wider administrative views? It might be a good idea to see what others have to think as I may be off the mark. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Try asking Moondyne before it comes to that. If he thinks that it should be lessened, I'll definitely agree as well. I say leave a note and give Moondyne 24 hours to respond before further action is taken, which will still be well within the week you are suggesting. Cheers, CP 01:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah good call - I'd certainly appreciate both your inputs before we proceed further, and as you say, it's still within the week I suggest. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 01:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Alas, I felt it was just a matter of time before Bart resumed his editing of other peoples comments again. Strategies in how to deal with this were discussed at a number of places including some private emails, his talk page (since archived) and ANI. I still support the 3 month block for the reasons CP has given above and if after this current block expires and the behaviour resumes, I would have to support a similar or longer term one again. Bart has 1) been given multiple short term blocks for the same thing; 2) promised to behave but continued on his merry way once his editing privilege was reinstated; 3) consumed a ridiculous amount of time from administrators and others asking him to abide by what is a really really simple policy. Ryan, I welcome your interest but requesting a shortened block is not constructive. I know the edits are not all that serious, but they are a flagrant breach of a policy which everyone else seems to be able to follow. I am not a policy wonk, but in this case I believe we have to draw a line in the sand. I believe that a 3 month break may just be enough to send the message through. But I'm happy for wider input if you wish. Moondyne 03:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd also add that if you read through the archives, there's a fairly clear consensus from a number of users for an extended block following Bart's warnings. Moondyne 11:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Red Rain in Kerala

Ey Up Ryan Postlethwaite,

Noting you comment on the Red Rain talk page a while back, you may be interested to know it's being reviewed again for FA status. At least I hope you still have some interest.

A chum with a penchant for panspermia had introduced me to the story in late 2005, so I read Louis and Kumar's three papers and the CESS paper, and went through a shedload of stuff on the internet. My conclusion was, and remains, that the cause was incomplete incineration.

On Wikipedia I thought I'd been quite careful and not overstepped the demarcation of original research and that I'd gently added factual information (e.g. the rather high concentration of heavy metals in the particles, or the unusually high concentration of Al). I lost interest after this paragraph I'd introduced was removed, though it remains in the schools version:

"More plausibly, the suggestion has been made that the red raindust was the result of incomplete incineration of chemical waste at the Eloor industrial zone, the particles being formed from microparticles of fly-ash or clay which coalesced around an aerosol of partly burnt organics as the incinerator plume cooled. The chemical composition of the raindust matches that of burnt organics plus clay; the fallout pattern matches with the prevailing winds; and various organic chemicals will form cellular structures which replicate in the presence of clay."

I'm not sure how best to sink finally the silly 'spores from space' idea. Are you still up for it? Or might it be better to leave it to die on its own? 87.113.211.135 (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Oops- was accidentally logged out so no sig. Davy p (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Edward Carson Mediation

Hi Ryan, I was wondering about your opinion as a mediator on this. [2] [3] [4] [5]

And the talk comment [6]

My viewpoint is that the category exists, and that both it and the article entry are notable and are cited.

Thank you for your views in advance! Keysstep (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

PR block

I noticed you blocked PR for 72 hours for adding material from a site of questionable reliability. I have to say I think this was harsh, as far as I can see. I feel honor bound to defend PR, for I defended Jaakobou some time ago, against PR and Nishidani as it happens, for adding translated material from a somewhat similar source of the opposite POV. Jaakobou himself did some work trying to establish the reliability of the very site PR used. Nishidani considers the two cases quite parallel, and the discussion on the Kaplan matter seemed inconclusive in the various talk pages and archives. In any case, what is important, the material, the Kaplan interview, is obtainable from better sites, cf Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/PR, which oddly PR didn't use. Perhaps he forgot, which hardly seems blockable. I hope you might reconsider. Regards,John Z (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou contacted me regarding this thread and was unhappy about it. It seems you're referring a site called jewsagainstzionism.com? Jaakobou doesn't think he's ever called that a reliable source. If you're saying he has it would be better to present diffs because people's recollections aren't perfect, and ideally Jaakobou would rather not get dragged into this particular discussion at all. He's doing his best to avoid PR these days (which we probably all agree is a good idea). I have no opinon on PR's block; just asking that it stand or fall on its own merits. With respect, Durova^Charge! 06:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean he called it an RS, just that Jaakobou , showing commendable good faith, made some attempt to explore the issue.[7] bottom of page. (Roland is involved in an unrelated organization with a similar name to the one running that site, hence the confusion) I agree, PR and Jaakobou staying apart is a good idea. My point was that if someone as far from PR as Jaakobou could think about the site's & source's reliability seriously for even a minute, I think that helps show that blocking based on one edit using it is not usual. I should have said "explore" rather than work to establish, but I was tired. This was all just a side point, I don't want to mention or drag in Jaakobou any further; my apologies to him, my main desire was just to urge Ryan to reconsider PR.John Z (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

My sig

OK, it was painful but I did it :-) How's it now? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 06:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

See

See User_talk:Rlevse#ArbCom_Clerk_Trainee. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)