Extraordinary message on my talk page, FT2 pops in for a cup of tea Options

[LaraLove]

Oh yes, and for your reading pleasure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._correspondence and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...cement_by_block

ArbCom doesn't make policy. You can't quote an ArbCom ruling and pretend it's policy. (I know lots of people do, but Lara is too honest.)

I don't mean to imply it's policy. Simply this is the grounds for the removal and the block. Though, the block was more than just about the edit-warring over the email, rather what is considered harassment of another user. I do, however, realize that perspectives of the situation are different for those here than they are for those on Wikipedia.

[Docknell]

Note the talk page referred to above with the 'extraordinary message' has now been deleted.

Yes, and you've been reblocked, all for the same reason. You can't post private correspondence on-wiki without consent of all involved parties. But you already know this.

Folk may not agree that this is a just rule, especially if the parties involved have been busily outing others. But it is a rule. Imperfectly applied? Sure, as with much else, but it ought to be the working assumption of anyone who wants to retain posting privs there that they not do that.

I'm done trying to help people on wiki that don't seem to grasp this point. I have bigger fish to fry, and there are only so many hours in a day. Scorn me if you like... about that, I [[WP:DGAF]].

WP is not a system of justice. WP doesn't do due process. But I repeat myself.

Its interesting to see how Hinnibilis gets blocked for restoring private correspondence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=500&type=block
16:23, 6 July 2008 LaraLove (Talk | contribs) blocked "Hinnibilis (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Personal attacks or harassment of other users: restoring private correspondence, see RfAr/Durova)

Yet FT2 gets to post private correspondence with HeadleyDown on the Wikipedia HD article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...own#Other_notes

How long has it been there? Years!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=62577899

It seems that most of the harassment on WP is from administrators who slur and harass editors that offer good research that disagrees with the particular administrator’s worldview. Again, check the diffs by HeadleyDown. Mostly just good research that happens to be painful to FT2.

WP admins, as inconsistent and self-serving as ever.

This post has been edited by Docknell: Mon 7th July 2008, 7:31am

[Proabivouac]

Yet FT2 gets to post private correspondence with HeadleyDown on the Wikipedia HD article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...own#Other_notes

Good catch, Docknell. We can be certain that LaraLove will now block FT2 indefinitely.

[Peter Damian]

I don't mean to imply it's policy. Simply this is the grounds for the removal and the block. Though, the block was more than just about the edit-warring over the email, rather what is considered harassment of another user. I do, however, realize that perspectives of the situation are different for those here than they are for those on Wikipedia.

Don't understand this. FT2 left a message on my talk page that contained several allegations which were patently untrue. One of these was quite serious: that I had remained unblocked Dec-May because I could not back up my allegations of biased editing. This is entirely untrue: I did back this up with diffs, and then the diffs were deleted.

Given that deletion removes all record - apparently even those with oversight privilege cannot see back to December - my only resort was to publish the correspondence with Scribe. Please note also this was not a private email, but a document circulated around Arbcom. I don't see the big deal about publishing it.

Or are you referring to my publishing Flo's email? Well that's ironic because that is the email where she says FT2 had been warned about harrassing me on my talk page.

I am trying to walk away from this, but there are some basic principles involved. I would like you to explain what the harrassment was, and who I was meant to be harrassing.

[edit] And Lara, have you noticed the title of this thread? What is it?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 7th July 2008, 7:18am

[guy]

It seems that most of the harassment on WP is from administrators who slur and harass editors that offer good research that disagrees with the particular administrator?ÇÖs worldview.

Indeed, or the view of their friends, which is why Chip Berlet or Lulu of the Lotus Eaters can be so influential.

[Peter Damian]

Interesting that Lara says (on her user page) she was named after the character in Dr Zhivago. One of my favourite all-time films. I love the scene where the apparatchik says "There is no cholera in Moscow".

When Zhivago gets into trouble it is because as a physician he wants to admit that there is cholera epidemic that they should be dealing with instead of pretending it does not exist.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 7th July 2008, 9:14am

[LaraLove]

I don't mean to imply it's policy. Simply this is the grounds for the removal and the block. Though, the block was more than just about the edit-warring over the email, rather what is considered harassment of another user. I do, however, realize that perspectives of the situation are different for those here than they are for those on Wikipedia.

Don't understand this. FT2 left a message on my talk page that contained several allegations which were patently untrue. One of these was quite serious: that I had remained unblocked Dec-May because I could not back up my allegations of biased editing. This is entirely untrue: I did back this up with diffs, and then the diffs were deleted.

Given that deletion removes all record - apparently even those with oversight privilege cannot see back to December - my only resort was to publish the correspondence with Scribe. Please note also this was not a private email, but a document circulated around Arbcom. I don't see the big deal about publishing it.

Or are you referring to my publishing Flo's email? Well that's ironic because that is the email where she says FT2 had been warned about harrassing me on my talk page.

I am trying to walk away from this, but there are some basic principles involved. I would like you to explain what the harrassment was, and who I was meant to be harrassing.

[edit] And Lara, have you noticed the title of this thread? What is it?

I'll look into the history. Hopefully this doesn't turn into a Moulton/the_undertow situation. Just in case, bookmark this.

[Dzonatas]

Yet FT2 gets to post private correspondence with HeadleyDown on the Wikipedia HD article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...own#Other_notes

Good catch, Docknell. We can be certain that LaraLove will now block FT2 indefinitely.

Now, this is interesting.

I'll look into the history. Hopefully this doesn't turn into a Moulton/the_undertow situation. Just in case, bookmark this.

What's going to be on that page? "It is recommend that LaraLove is admonished, and she will concede to being slapped around with a blue-belly trout no more than 7 times for each unfortunate shortcoming revealed from other admins and Arbcom members by her quite hasty but direct, good-faith, action."

[Milton Roe]

WP is not a system of justice. WP doesn't do due process. But I repeat myself.

And one day you may find yourself on the shitty end of that stick, in a way you cannot now foresee, inasmuch as what goes around eventually comes around. So be prepared not to blubber at that time.

Oh, absolutely. I have no illusions on that score. Feel free to laugh at me at that time if I somehow forget that.

Oh, don't worry.

[Milton Roe]

Interesting that Lara says (on her user page) she was named after the character in Dr Zhivago. One of my favourite all-time films. I love the scene where the apparatchik says "There is no cholera in Moscow".

When Zhivago gets into trouble it is because as a physician he wants to admit that there is cholera epidemic that they should be dealing with instead of pretending it does not exist.

And if you know anything about the symptoms of cholera, it's doubly funny that anybody, up to their ankles in a tide of liquid diarrhea, would be trying to deny the existence of an epidemic of it. WP reminds me of this again and again: "Gee, I hope this doesn't become one of those unfortunate Mantanmoreland or Moulton things." Because those were, well, just unfortunate.You couldn't see the problems at the time. So "mistakes were made." (but not by us). We all acted absolutely correctly given what we knew at the time. Just like the Iraq war. Yes, we had critics at the time saying we were insane, but you know those guys. They're always carping about something or other. We never listen to them because, well, they're always wrong.

Now, can be just get past this and quit focusing on the past?

Oh, yeah, as for the present problem. Right. Well, it's not clear. We're all doing the best we can, uh, based on the information we have. Yes, we have our critics. But their information isn't to be trusted. If it later turns out to be correct, well, we'll deal with that when we come to it. We're human. If in the future we turn out to be wrong, at least we can say at that time that we did the best we could based on what we know now. Which includes the fact that our critics are just angry with us. And we have incomplete information...

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Mon 7th July 2008, 6:30pm

[thekohser]

Oh, yeah, as for the present problem. Right. Well, it's not clear. We're all doing the best we can, uh, based on the information we have. Yes, we have our critics. But their information isn't to be trusted. If it later turns out to be correct, well, we'll deal with that when we come to it. We're human. If in the future we turn out to be wrong, at least we can say at that time that we did the best we could based on what we know now. Which includes the fact that our critics are just angry with us. And we have incomplete information...

I read that, and it's like you're channeling Jimbo himself. Seriously, I could ALMOST see Jimmy writing that drivel with a straight face.

[Peter Damian]

I've just remembered the little 'message' that FT2 left on my talk page when I first opened the Damian account in May.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Damian

This consists almost entirely of emails that were circulated at Arbcom. So how is it that when I post a document (not an email) on my talk page I am blocked (by the inappositely named LaraLove), but FT2 is not? We should be told. And why is it that replying to such a message on one's talk page is seen as harrassment, but actually leaving the message is not?

Again, Lara, we should be told.

I do, however, realize that perspectives of the situation are different for those here than they are for those on Wikipedia.

I am not interested in 'perspectives', I am interested in the truth.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Thu 17th July 2008, 10:08am

[wikiwhistle]

This consists almost entirely of emails that were circulated at Arbcom. So how is it that when I post a document (not an email) on my talk page I am blocked (by the inappositely named LaraLove), but FT2 is not? We should be told. And why is it that replying to such a message on one's talk page is seen as harrassment, but actually leaving the message is not?

Because you were lower in the pecking order.

If you think of it as a status game/ personality contest, it's not so difficult to understand. Oh, that and he didn't imply you are a paedo-loving beastialist

[LaraLove]

I've just remembered the little 'message' that FT2 left on my talk page when I first opened the Damian account in May.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Damian

This consists almost entirely of emails that were circulated at Arbcom. So how is it that when I post a document (not an email) on my talk page I am blocked (by the inappositely named LaraLove), but FT2 is not? We should be told. And why is it that replying to such a message on one's talk page is seen as harrassment, but actually leaving the message is not?

Again, Lara, we should be told.

I do, however, realize that perspectives of the situation are different for those here than they are for those on Wikipedia.

I am not interested in 'perspectives', I am interested in the truth.

I already told you more than once to knock it off with the bullshit comments toward me in the forums while kissing my ass in pm. I'm looking into your case, you know this, and we've been in communication for days over this. So answer me this, here in the forums:

Do you want me to look into your case or not?

If you do, you need to stfu about me in here unless it's in the same tone as your pms. Otherwise, you're coming off as two-faced, and by God, you can find someone else to put themselves on the line over this shit.

[Peter Damian]

I already told you more than once to knock it off with the bullshit comments toward me in the forums while kissing my ass in pm. I'm looking into your case, you know this, and we've been in communication for days over this. So answer me this, here in the forums:

Do you want me to look into your case or not?

If you do, you need to stfu about me in here unless it's in the same tone as your pms. Otherwise, you're coming off as two-faced, and by God, you can find someone else to put themselves on the line over this shit.

I really don't want any help from someone who talks like this. Thanks for the offer of help (it was your offer, remember), but no thanks. There is too much of the prisoner-jailer relationship here for me to be comfortable with that. You know about the way that people taken prisoner by terrorists develop these odd relationships with their captors. I don't want to go there.

I think you want to have it both ways: to have a position you regard as important on Wikipedia, and to swagger around here as though you are a sympathetic rebel. Not with me. Thanks, but no thanks.

[LaraLove]

This was just carried out. I came here to post it and read the above message from Peter Damian.

For the record, Peter has been very rude and disrespectful to me here in the forums, while being quite the opposite to me in pms regarding my further investigation into his case. So please, everyone be aware that he's quite two-faced.

Over the past few days, I've been reviewing all the relevant pages, discussions and diffs. I've undone my actions because I believe it's the right thing to do. I am, however, not going any further with this, as I had told Peter in pm that I would do. It's rather risky for me to do so, and considering his total lack of respect in public view, I see no need to put myself on the line for him. His accounts are unblocked, linked to one another, and he should be be fine as long as he minds his manners.

[Peter Damian]

This was just carried out. I came here to post it and read the above message from Peter Damian.

For the record, Peter has been very rude and disrespectful to me here in the forums, while being quite the opposite to me in pms regarding my further investigation into his case. So please, everyone be aware that he's quite two-faced.

Thank you. I'm sorry if you felt it was rude and disrespectful - it was gentle teasing in my view and, as you know, I quite like you. As for disrspectful, that is the problem with the prisoner-jailer relation I mentioned above.

In my view, the correct thing would have been for you to hand the block to Thatcher, who had been dealing with the earlier one. Then you would not have been at risk from the current unblock.

I also see you have put yourself at risk by revealing the contents of the arbcom letter to me on-wiki. You don't have to do that, you know.

As I say, I quite like you (there - in public), I'm sorry if there has been any bad feeling.

not going any further with this, as I had told Peter in pm that I would do. It's rather risky for me to do so

Why would this be any riskier than unrolling back the arbcom letter contents?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Thu 17th July 2008, 3:55pm

[LaraLove]

Undoing my own actions is not controversial. Opening up official ArbCom correspondence after FT2 did the same, that's not controversial either. All of my reverts were of my own use of the tools, no one elses. I also spoke with the admin for whom had brought the issue to my attention to begin with to inform that further investigation was taking place and that I felt like I'd been intentionally put in a bad spot. That is, however, my own fault.

By putting myself on the line further, I mean taking the details and diffs you've presented to support your case, the one you started in December, and taking it further. I've been cutting back on Wikipedia, and the internet altogether, for a short while now. Better things to do, I'm over the stress, and I'm sick of checking admin (and even at times, non-admin) account contributions and finding practically, if not literally, no content contributions. Then I realized that mine do not look much better. So what time I do spend on Wikipedia now, will mostly be in article space, hopefully.

[Peter Damian]

Undoing my own actions is not controversial. Opening up official ArbCom correspondence after FT2 did the same, that's not controversial either. All of my reverts were of my own use of the tools, no one elses. I also spoke with the admin for whom had brought the issue to my attention to begin with to inform that further investigation was taking place and that I felt like I'd been intentionally put in a bad spot. That is, however, my own fault.

By putting myself on the line further, I mean taking the details and diffs you've presented to support your case, the one you started in December, and taking it further. I've been cutting back on Wikipedia, and the internet altogether, for a short while now. Better things to do, I'm over the stress, and I'm sick of checking admin (and even at times, non-admin) account contributions and finding practically, if not literally, no content contributions. Then I realized that mine do not look much better. So what time I do spend on Wikipedia now, will mostly be in article space, hopefully.

Well, thank you again, and sorry if my words sounded harsh - that was not intended. take care

[LaraLove]

Well, thank you again, and sorry if my words sounded harsh - that was not intended. take care

Thank you. And apologies in return for being snippy... and foul-mouthed. I need to work on that.

This post has been edited by LaraLove: Thu 17th July 2008, 5:54pm