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 13/04/2008-24/06/2008 24/06/2008-present

PalestineRemembered again

Are you still mentoring PalestineRemembered? I'm quite concerned about some of his recent edits:

• In this edit he inserts some fairly negative, and possibly unsourced material about Omer Bartov, describing him as an "Israeli military historian". Bartov is, in actuality, is the John P. Birkelund Distinguished Professor of European History and Professor of History and Professor of German Studies at Brown University, and an expert in genocide.
• In this edit, which appears to consist almost entirely of original research, he links to www.vho.org/aaargh , the notorious Holocaust denial site Association des anciens amateurs de récits de guerre et d'holocauste. One would think, given his history regarding this, and his constant insistence on "reliable sources" and his alleged disdain for "hate sites", that he would avoid doing so.
• Here he inserts an entirely groundless speech about a website that misrepresents both policy and the site itself; he claims one cannot use Hebrew sources on English wikipedia, and assumes that because the site is not anti-Israel "it should be used with extreme care for "historical facts"."

I'd be interested in your response. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Omar Bartov is indeed an Israeli military historian; this is not somehow mutually exclusive with his twenty-word official academic title at Brown as typed out by Jay. There is negative well-poisoning and there is positive well-poisoning. PR's version was guilty of the former, Jay's of the latter. Neither was egregious.
2. PR's "groundless speech" on the reliable sources noticeboard was, in actuality, an on-point response to an explicit request for opinions about the reliability of said source. PR gave his reasonable assessment on the merits, and others responded respectfully, and the matter appears to have been settled in exactly the way such things are settled on the RS noticeboard. None of the participants in that discussion emerged rattled or upset; what's rattled Jay as an onlooker is a mystery.
3. PR did indeed link to the website of a Holocaust-denying outfit, but the document he's citing appears to come from the Jerusalem-based National Center for Psychosocial Support of Survivors of the Holocaust and the Second Generation, in turn citing a report from the Israeli prime minister's office in 1997. Now, I don't know if that document itself is legit, but www.vho.org/aaargh is only one of several websites that reproduce it, and there's no indication that PR knew it was a deniers' website. It'd be worth asking him, but my guess is that Finkelstein's book (which is the subject of the article in question) cites the document, and PR searched for an online version of it, and when he found one the URL www.vho.org didn't mean anything to him. Unless there's something I'm missing, PR's "history regarding [Holocaust denial]" consists entirely of one false accusation leveled by Jayjg. Jay's 'evidence' in that episode took less than an hour to demolish, but his eventual 'apology' took over a week to extract from the resulting rubble.--G-Dett (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Update Indeed, Finkelstein cites the report from the Israeli Prime Minister's Office on page 83 of his book. I'm all but certain PR simply tried to find an online version of that report. Many editors (including Jayjg) have stressed their preference for citations that can be found and verified online.--G-Dett (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, G-Dett, how nice to find you have followed me here to this Talk: page, to "support" me in that mysterious way of yours that involves disagreeing with everything I say. Bartov is an Israeli military historian? Funny, most of books all seem to be about the history of Germany and the Holocaust and about genocide - when did he write about the Israeli military? As for PR's speech on the reliable sources board, he basically said "Zionist, therefore unreliable" about a site about which he knew nothing. His POV and prejudice were completely unreasonable, as is your defense of him in this matter. Regarding the Holocaust Denial site, given PR's constant droning about "hate sites", one would imagine that he would actually take care not to link to them, regardless of the various far-fetched excuses given for his doing so. And finally, when and where have I "stressed [my] preference for citations that can be found and verified online"? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Peter Damian

Please see this ANI thread.[1] Just to let you know. --Risker (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Risker for letting me know - much appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to say that I strongly oppose your decision to Block Peter Damian indefinitely. You should have blocked him for a week. An indefinite block is a too extreme punishment for the crime. Could you please revise your punishment for Peter Damian. Thanks Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Per my comments here and the surrounding discussion, I think an incremental "second offense" block is more in order and I have shortened the block to 7 days. Thatcher 16:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Mind-meld

See [2] — Rlevse • Talk • 01:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, if you are uninvolved enough to track the Cla68 case with Jay, hook up with him, he can use the help he says. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits

Hi Ryan, I wanted to make you aware of the fact that I have undone a tagging of Vintagekits's userpage done by John254[3] and have notified him of my actions here; I am telling you about it as you are the administrator who has taken leadership in resolving the debate at WP:Arbitration enforcement. I have assumed that John254's tagging was done in good faith, and that he was unaware of the continuing discussion. I hope that the issue of Vintagekits's status will be resolved soon. Risker (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Risker - thanks for that. I've closed the thread out now - let's just hope we've done the right thing. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No problems, Ryan. This has been a good day for VK, but I think he's been scared straight with this. He also knows that there are a few more admins watching his moves closely now. For myself, I've seen how difficult it is to draft conditions that are crystal-clear to everyone and still make sense for the encyclopedia; something to keep in mind, for certain. Risker (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks [4] Naerii 11:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nakba denial

Over at Gaza, 20th C, there is a statement "The city's growing population was augmented by an influx of Arab refugees fleeing Israel."

Clearly, this is nothing like adequate, it's denial. We know that they'd been (in modern parlance) ethnically cleansed from Israel eg Naeim Giladi says I reported to the Labor Office in al-Mejdil ... A clerk handed me a bunch of forms in Arabic and Hebrew. ... The Military Governor prohibited them from pursuing their livelihoods, just penned them up until they lost hope of resuming their normal lives. That's when they signed to leave. I was there and heard their grief.

This testimony is in Giladi's book "Ben-Gurion's Scandals" p.6/7 and at his web-site. (It's also carried by the notorious Jews Against Zionism). I wonder if you think the word of this ex-Iraqi Zionist is adequate. I'd like to insert "an influx of Arab refugees driven from Israel". PR^talk 13:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits unblock

Thanks for handling the AE closure. Good call, IMO :) - Alison ^❤ 21:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem - I think it came to the right conclusion. It's an easy way out to block an editor with past problems, much harder to let them back in. There's plenty of people willing to keep an eye out here, and hopefully VK will respect the efforts some people have gone to to allow him to stay here. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 27	30 June 2008	About the Signpost

Private arbitration case criticized, vacated	Other ArbCom announcements reviewed in wake of controversy
Statistical model identifies potential RfA candidates	WikiWorld: "Mike Birbiglia and the Perils of Sleepwalking"
News and notes: Board votes released, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Sources in biology and medicine	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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) 04:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation request

Hi, if you have the time, myself and User:CarterBar and to a lesser extent User:Crispness are in a content dispute over the usage of the term "British Isles" in reference to the articles Radio 4 UK Theme and BBC Radio 4. We've had discussions on my Talk page here - User talk:Bardcom#Radio 4 Theme. Thank you. --Bardcom (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I've only just seen that User:CarterBar has also looked for help -> Wikipedia:Help desk#How do I take a case to Arbitration. Thought I'd point it out - not sure myself what he's looking for... --Bardcom (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think the best course of action for now would be to take this to WP:MECOM. They're extremely good at sorting small disputes out (which this is). RfC's take a long time, and often don't get much outside interest. If you need help filing a case, let me know. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll leave it to CarterBar. He was originally looking for an impartial 3rd party - not sure why he's looking for an RfC. It was more in line with an impartial 3rd party that I turned to you. Thanks for the advice (BTW, what's MECOM?) --Bardcom (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I meant WP:MEDCAB - it's a place for informal mediation. I'm just a little busy off wiki at the minute or I'd have offered to help myself :-( Ryan Postlethwaite 21:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries - a 3rd opinion has been requested and just given on Talk:Radio 4 UK Theme, so it looks like it's being sorted. And thanks for the offer though. --Bardcom (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Smile!

Here's Triton for you! Triton somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Húsönd 01:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hi, You were briefly involved in a dispute involving myself and User:Bardcom yesterday, and although you indicated you have other commitments I was wondering whether you could spare a few moments to look at the general situation regarding this user, and perhaps offer advice as to how, or if, something can be done about it. If you're not aware of the situation a good place to start is here - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bardcom. The points raised in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bardcom#Statement of the dispute section are as valid to day as they were a few months ago, possibly more so, but as you pointed out, RfCs tend not to attract many people from outside; this was the case here. Nearly everyone who contributed to the RfC had an interest in the situation, even those that offered so-called outside views. Eventually it fizzled out and Bardcom was free to continue his war against British Isles in Wikipedia. Next, have a look at Bardcom's edit history (particularly today), and then look at his Talk pages (and archives). You'll see that there is a real issue here. At the risk of incurring his wrath once more - and inviting yet more warnings from him - it is my belief that his actions in systematically eliminating the term British Isles from this encyclopedia are compromising the integrity of the project as a whole, apart from all the other problems his actions are causing. I think that a completely independent view needs to be taken on the actions of this editor. Thanks, CarterBar (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Izmir lee, again

He's back as an anonymous IP this time [5]. This guy just won't stop.

--Tsourkpk (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for letting me know - could you bring it to my attention if there's any more please? Ryan Postlethwaite 20:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll be sure to do so. Thanks again. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ryan, looks like it's him again: [6], [7], [8], [9]. Slightly different IPs, but the edit pattern is the same. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, it's him - thanks for letting me know. I've extended the block on his main account to indefinite. Again, let me know if there's any more IP's. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Another one:[10]. This is guy is unstoppable. Looks like he has a dynamic IP address. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've range blocked one of his ranges, where he was getting most of his IP's from for 24 hours. That should at least slow him down for now. But please keep me updated. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu, MBisanz and Betacommand

You said: "He used that quote with MBisanz as well" - I remember that as well. Have you considered pointing this out to MBisanz as well? E-mail threats like that are particularly bad because they avoid transparency and work in the background off-wiki. Carcharoth (talk) 05:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

While I was at the mall when all this went down, I am up to speed and aware of the similar nature, per [11]. MBisanz ^talk 05:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it Matt - I wasn't sure whether or not it was said on or off wiki. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Block brags

See Vintagekits user page. He's bragging about the number of his blocks. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if he wants to brag about them, I guess he can. I wouldn't personally, but there's nothing against it. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I just cruised by to see what was on your user page, Ryan. I saw this, and checked out VK's page. He rm'd Sumo's comment, now Alison has advised him in strong terms to remove it. Go check it out. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I did see it. Whilst it would be a good idea to suggest to VK that he removes it, he certainly isn't bound to accept it. As I said, I wouldn't be bragging about something like that myself, but there's not much we can really do to stop him doing it if he wants to. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, I wasn't impressed with the flipancy he showed in removing the comment - I wish he'd have responded properly. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that too. Did you ever get with Jay about helping with the Cla68 case? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got it watchlisted, and I've been keeping an eye on it, but nothing has really needed doing "clerk" wise. Haven't had a chance to speak with Jay yet - I'll have to try and catch him on IRC. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Contras

Just to say it's moving. Shame one of the participants isn't involved, but I think we have enough views represented. My plan is to tackle the big, chunky issues first and then move onto finer detail. Please keep an eye (and/or ask another experienced mediator to) and drop me a line if you have advice or think I'm barking up the wrong tree. PS Has some dev been fiddling with the location of the minor edit tickbox? It's now way down below the wikimarkup list. What a bad idea that was. --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Answered you

— Rlevse • Talk • 01:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK entry

Ryan, while I can understand where you're coming from to an extent, reverting any mention of WR from today's DYK just smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I've reverted for the moment but c'mon - this went through the usual process already and overriding that is just not the thing to do here - Alison ^❤ 23:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, my friend - the fact that DS has already left messages for the editors involved (Neil, Peter Symonds, and whoever else) does not negate your personal responsibility to explain your actions to these respected editors. I urge you to do so, in a thoughtful, non-blaming way. Please consider it. Risker (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've had a chat with both of them - I certainly didn't remove the article to upset those two, they were both acting in good faith. Hopefully they will understand my reasoning, even if they don't agree (as a lot of people don't seem to do at this point in time, but I can't turn back the clock). Ryan Postlethwaite 02:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No that's fine; thanks for the note. However, I just updated the template from the Next Update, so I wasn't really involved with the selection. Once it's at T:TDYK and the Next Update, it goes through some rigorous checking by the DYK admin regulars (BorgQueen (talk · contribs), Gatoclass (talk · contribs), and other non-admins etc), so I had little hesitation about putting it on the template. It was a valid DYK, correct length, with verifiable sources, so those were probably the only issues that were looked for. Nevertheless, I see where you're coming from, and (had I been awake the duration of that DYK slot) would have had no objections. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle

I've restored Twinkle for the reasons outlined in the edit summary. On a closely related note, in the future, I'd appreciate it if you would contact me immediately, and preferably on my user talk page, about any concerns you're harbouring against me (sic!). Apart from potential instances of necessary and useful feedback, criticism or reminders, I will never forget that you vigorously defended subpar editing. user:Everyme 09:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Right.... Ryan Postlethwaite 13:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)