Ryan Postlethwaite: stop criticizing me on WR, offers Peter Damian unblock in exchange for his silence Options

[prospero]

What is needed is a transparent and fair hearing of his grievances regarding FT2.

No blocks for presenting evidence, and no improper abuse of oversight privilege to suppress evidence.

I doubt Arbcom will hear a case involving allegations of improper blocking from months or years ago. I don't think FT2 has done much content editing at all since his election, has he? If the offense is not recent enough they probably will reject the request.

Likewise, whoever oversighted the zoophilia edits (assuming Damian is telling the truth that someone admitted as much to him) has either been punished or forgiven long since, and I do not think they will hear a case based on that.

Exactly. Has Jayjg ever been brought to account for the hundreds of improper oversights he did on behalf of SlimVirgin? You know, the covering up of behavior that is far more damaging and egregious than anything FT2 ever did? Even when the entire thing blew up in the community's face? No, I don't think so. It didn't happen then, it won't happen at the end of C68-FM-SV. Get real.

I'm far more interested in seeing the hammer to drop on FeloniousMonk and SlimVirgin, which all this idiotic circus over OM and Peter is distracting from. Quite frankly, I DGAF about this FT2 crap. He's peanuts compared to the real power players who need to be taken down.

[Jon Awbrey]

Why do Wikipedians fear criticism so much?

See "Certainty Orientation" and various threads on "Inquiry" elsewhere on this site.

Jon

Here's a Meta-Thread on Inquiry that brings together some of our previous probings into this question.

Jon

[Lar]

Alison, you have no control over others, like Ryan, who nominate you. But, you do have an obligatrion to not let that affect your judgement in other areas. I don't believe it does. Even though I give you a hard time, now and again.

You do have some control over who nominates you... you can (usually) decline to be nominated by them. I was dinged for too many co-nominees when I stood, but I had several more I chose not to accept.

[Piperdown]

Exactly. Has Jayjg ever been brought to account for the hundreds of improper oversights he did on behalf of SlimVirgin? You know, the covering up of behavior that is far more damaging and egregious than anything FT2 ever did? Even when the entire thing blew up in the community's face? No, I don't think so. It didn't happen then, it won't happen at the end of C68-FM-SV. Get real.

I'm far more interested in seeing the hammer to drop on FeloniousMonk and SlimVirgin, which all this idiotic circus over OM and Peter is distracting from. Quite frankly, I DGAF about this FT2 crap. He's peanuts compared to the real power players who need to be taken down.

jimmy's still looking in that Jayjg/Slimmy Oversight Expedition since Aug 2007, in his own personal secret trial.

he'll get back to you with what he finds, he's all about the community.

[Milton Roe]

Or more like "Don't take free shots at me when I can't reply"?

You must have your locations place confused, SirFozz. This is WR. It's WP where they gag dissent.

Ryan or you can reply all you like, here. So can FT2.

WR is also where NewYorkBrad's IP was released to Daniel Brandt. So forgive me for being a wee bit cynical about the "free speech" here.

I do not know the truth of the incident you allege. And neither, I warrant, do you you. If you're getting your "info" from Encyclopedia Dramatica, though, be aware that they are not exactly The Washington Post.

Your IP address gets "outed" everytime you don't post to WP as a nameuser. And very often if you post by mistake after WP has logged you off, for time-reasons, and thinks you're an IP user (many a sock nabbed this way, even without checkuser-- for example some of Mantanmoreland's). It's not a horrid thing to happen unless you're posting from an IP which somehow identifies you. Which usually it does not (all that happens is, it identifies you as a particular nameuser). How closely it identifies your location depends on what ISP or IP you have. If you're dumb enough to post from your own business IP node, and that business has only a few employees (ie, it's not the pentagon or some giant Manhattan building), and only one of those employees has a name like your part of your username, and shares your occupation which you're already made public, well, what can I say? But "outing" you in that case is possible for anybody with a brain-- it's not a WR problem.

That said, none of this has to do with the issue above, for various reasons. Ryan Postelthwaithe, in particular, has a photo of himself on his page, his name, his student occupation, a userbox that asserts he's "too sexy", and (not to be outdone) a Big Schlong Barnstar that somebody gave him* (be sure to click on the link to see the actual big schlong becoming erect). Whether that's actually Ryan's schlong is not the point: the point is that he is no introvert, and is not in any danger of being "outed" by anything that WR could possibly find out about him. So you're being disingenuous to bring up the broad issue in discussing this specific guy and his shyness . If he wants to come here to defend his actions, he can. No WR policy or past action could possibly be preventing him.

*["Somebody," indeed. That barnstar is interesting. There's a discussion about it on the Administrator's Noticeboard , and it appears that this Big Schlong Barnstar exists nowhere else but on Ryan's page. Supposedly it was added by a since-banned user, and the tag deleted, or that was the AN story (given with no evidence). But there it is, still on Ryan's userpage, apparently reconstructed by himself. If you try to see just when it was first added by looking at edit diff names, you can't. It appears first, as the second edit of June 6, 2007. By Ryan himself. No edit diffs appear anywhere from the supposed star-giving (Whose name looks like an anagram, as it's NOIRB Rebbiv). The date for re-addition of the tag is given as 5 Jan 08 on the Awards page, but this barnstar has been sitting on the userpage 18 months before that, since June 6, 2007, as noted. All edits from this NOIRB person have been oversighted, BTW. They've disappeared, so I doubt they're a mere "banned user." Looks like an oversighted account of a now-admin. Embryoadmin-droppings. In any case, see for the reconstructed userbox image. ]

For people like FT2 who are deeper into the secret identiity closet, there's nothing to prevent them coming here, either, by proxy IP anonymizer. Unlike WP, if WR finds out that proxy ISP how you're getting here, you're not blocked for that, either. You see, WP always wants a way to "know" your usual IP; WR really doesn't care. There is a difference. Sorry. WP is the group of power-addicts and control-freaks and the social-game players. Don't tar us at WR with the same brush. We're here to get away from that kind of pathology, and from your WP games. Our interest is in the question of how to make a collaborative encyclopedia without abusing the people who do it. That isn't WP's particular interest, as the actions of WP clearly show.

M.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Tue 1st July 2008, 7:08pm

[SirFozzie]

Hey, I'll tell you what. Let's play chess, but only if you promise not to move a pawn in the first ten moves. Any other piece is fine - wouldn't want to restrict you!

The reason they are asking you not to post here is precisely because posting here is the only thing that ever made any difference.

Likewise, what you're supposed to keep confidential is what matters. The rest doesn't matter too much, and apparently isn't that convincing to casual passers by. I've dug deep into it, but most visitors won't. Fozz dismissed you, for example, and he's hardly unfair, as they go.

Let me say it one more time: people are reading what you write here, now. They won't be tomorrow.

I have had a reply from Foz - he is not editing Wikipedia but helpfully suggests I email Arbcom. I'm afraid it's going to be like that.

I emailed Flo twice yesterday. I will continue pestering passing admins.

You say people are reading this. Of course, but then they will see how afraid the administration are of bringing this whole thing to light.

I also suggested that you could email Rlevse or another of the clerks to post a public case for you.

[tarantino]

It appears first, as the second edit of June 6, 2007. By Ryan himself. No edit diffs appear anywhere from the supposed star-giving (Whose name looks like an anagram, as it's NOIRB Rebbiv). The date for re-addition of the tag is given as 5 Jan 08 on the Awards page, but this barnstar has been sitting on the userpage 18 months before that, since June 6, 2007, as noted. All edits from this NOIRB person have been oversighted, BTW. They've disappeared, so I doubt they're a mere "banned user." Looks like an oversighted account of a now-admin. Embryoadmin-droppings. In any case, see for the reconstructed userbox image. ]

It was actually added on the awards page by Rebbiv NOIRB.
That's a mediawiki developer's name spelled backwards. I'm guessing it's actually a Majorly sock.

Phaedriel transcluded his awards page on his user page in June 2007. it may appear that newer edits show on older pages when there's transclusions.

[dogbiscuit]

It appears first, as the second edit of June 6, 2007. By Ryan himself. No edit diffs appear anywhere from the supposed star-giving (Whose name looks like an anagram, as it's NOIRB Rebbiv). The date for re-addition of the tag is given as 5 Jan 08 on the Awards page, but this barnstar has been sitting on the userpage 18 months before that, since June 6, 2007, as noted. All edits from this NOIRB person have been oversighted, BTW. They've disappeared, so I doubt they're a mere "banned user." Looks like an oversighted account of a now-admin. Embryoadmin-droppings. In any case, see for the reconstructed userbox image. ]

It was actually added on the awards page by Rebbiv NOIRB.
That's a mediawiki developer's name spelled backwards. I'm guessing it's actually a Majorly sock.

Phaedriel transcluded his awards page on his user page in June 2007. it may appear that newer edits show on older pages when there's transclusions.

Why not just ask Ryan as he is here?

[Milton Roe]

It appears first, as the second edit of June 6, 2007. By Ryan himself. No edit diffs appear anywhere from the supposed star-giving (Whose name looks like an anagram, as it's NOIRB Rebbiv). The date for re-addition of the tag is given as 5 Jan 08 on the Awards page, but this barnstar has been sitting on the userpage 18 months before that, since June 6, 2007, as noted. All edits from this NOIRB person have been oversighted, BTW. They've disappeared, so I doubt they're a mere "banned user." Looks like an oversighted account of a now-admin. Embryoadmin-droppings. In any case, see for the reconstructed userbox image. ]

It was actually added on the awards page by Rebbiv NOIRB.
That's a mediawiki developer's name spelled backwards. I'm guessing it's actually a Majorly sock.

Phaedriel transcluded his awards page on his user page in June 2007. it may appear that newer edits show on older pages when there's transclusions.

Why not just ask Ryan as he is here?

Ah, that clears up a mystery. You can add stuff to subpages directly, and (duh) it doesn't show up as an edit diff when that page is later transcluded to a main one. Which happened here. But why the wrong date? Guess NOIRB edited it again, later.

BRION I had figured as a backwards anagram. But "Vibber" threw me, as it doesn't sound real. And probably isn't.

Thanks for the enlightenment. Yes, we know Ryan's here. ~~~

[dogbiscuit]

Thanks for the enlightenment. Yes, we know Ryan's here. ~~~

Perhaps Ryan can explain why his contributions here have simply been to say that Peter is wrong, with no evidence, and yet it is acceptable to use this same argument on Wikipedia as proof by assertion that Peter is harassing. The trouble is with the various sex related pages is that they are sensitive, yet that sensitivity is managed in a single direction, usually with snide OMGCHILDRENCensorship!!!!! comments when people point out the problems. As ever, Wikipedia loves the drama of the civility and harassment dialogues, as it saves having to deal with the hard issues of whether content is appropriate.

Ryan doesn't see the problem with presenting himself as a drunken lout rather than a mature arbiter of things encyclopaedic, though he proclaims here that he has demonstrated his mature judgment. Mature judgment is not something people expect to be available on an occasional basis. Having dined many a night at the Plaza in my day, I am well aware of Manchester's delightful night-life, but I don't think Manchester University would be particularly proud of the image he projects, and nor should Wikipedia. It certainly colours my opinion of him, and I'd assume that a fair amount of his admining is done under the influence.

[Ryan Postlethwaite]

Thanks for the enlightenment. Yes, we know Ryan's here. ~~~

Perhaps Ryan can explain why his contributions here have simply been to say that Peter is wrong, with no evidence, and yet it is acceptable to use this same argument on Wikipedia as proof by assertion that Peter is harassing. The trouble is with the various sex related pages is that they are sensitive, yet that sensitivity is managed in a single direction, usually with snide OMGCHILDRENCensorship!!!!! comments when people point out the problems. As ever, Wikipedia loves the drama of the civility and harassment dialogues, as it saves having to deal with the hard issues of whether content is appropriate.

Ryan doesn't see the problem with presenting himself as a drunken lout rather than a mature arbiter of things encyclopaedic, though he proclaims here that he has demonstrated his mature judgment. Mature judgment is not something people expect to be available on an occasional basis. Having dined many a night at the Plaza in my day, I am well aware of Manchester's delightful night-life, but I don't think Manchester University would be particularly proud of the image he projects, and nor should Wikipedia. It certainly colours my opinion of him, and I'd assume that a fair amount of his admining is done under the influence.

Oh jesus, I had to reply to this one. I haven't once suggested that I'm a mature adult who displays mature judgement. Quite the opposite actually - I like going out, getting smashed and ending up in some random place because I don't know what's going on. I'm bloody 22 and a student, this is what most students do! Maybe when I'm 30, I'll calm down and be sensible, but I'll always look back and be pleased with the times that I've had. I don't try and impress anyone with what I do, especially not on WP - it's just a hobby and I've got plenty of people to gain respect off in RL to not give a damn what people think of me on a bloody website , so if you think I say things to get respect or climb the Wiki-ladder then you're wrong, very wrong indeed.

Now, that doesn't mean that I'm off my face all the time - I've only edited a couple of times whilst under the influence, not a big fan really because I've got other things to do when I'm pissed! Maybe some people sit in, have a bottle of whiskey and edit the pedia - not me, I go out with the boys when I want to have it large!

[dogbiscuit]

Oh jesus, I had to reply to this one. I haven't once suggested that I'm a mature adult who displays mature judgement. Quite the opposite actually - I like going out, getting smashed and ending up in some random place because I don't know what's going on. I'm bloody 22 and a student, this is what most students do! Maybe when I'm 30, I'll calm down and be sensible, but I'll always look back and be pleased with the times that I've had. I don't try and impress anyone with what I do, especially not on WP - it's just a hobby and I've got plenty of people to gain respect off in RL to not give a damn what people think of me on a bloody website , so if you think I say things to get respect or climb the Wiki-ladder then you're wrong, very wrong indeed.

Now, that doesn't mean that I'm off my face all the time - I've only edited a couple of times whilst under the influence, not a big fan really because I've got other things to do when I'm pissed! Maybe some people sit in, have a bottle of whiskey and edit the pedia - not me, I go out with the boys when I want to have it large!

Thought you might

Never once?

Two interesting strands from there: of course student life should have an element of high jinx, though I'm not sure that I'm too impressed with the idea of deliberately getting senselessly drunk.

The trouble is that there are plenty of people around who do take Wikipedia very seriously (Peter for one). For his sins, it appears that Peter's main frustration is that he can demonstrate that there is much that is badly written and he is able to resolve these issues within policy - and cannot relate to the gaming that goes on. So being poked about by someone who clearly thinks it is something of a game rather than a serious activity does not sit well with them. In the words of Wikipedia: are you really there to write an encyclopedia? Sure, there is no right or wrong of the correct way to approach Wikipedia - surely that is the point - but people should be sensitive to other people's motivations.

For what ever reason, you have taken it upon yourself to act as FT2's defender, yet you have not recognised that having taken that role for some time you are not uninvolved. You also are playing a dangerous game of bluff - you are assuming that FT2 is clean, and that Peter Damian does not have damaging material. By pushing Peter out, and goading him by deliberately linking his name that you know he is sensitive about, you are ensuring that he will go for the nuclear option. With FT2 out of favour at ArbCom, the timing could not be better from Peter's point of view.

You characterise it as just some bloody website. If you have no pride in WP, why are you an admin?

[Proabivouac]

For what ever reason, you have taken it upon yourself to act as FT2's defender, yet you have not recognised that having taken that role for some time you are not uninvolved. You also are playing a dangerous game of bluff - you are assuming that FT2 is clean, and that Peter Damian does not have damaging material. By pushing Peter out, and goading him by deliberately linking his name that you know he is sensitive about, you are ensuring that he will go for the nuclear option. With FT2 out of favour at ArbCom, the timing could not be better from Peter's point of view.

That's exactly right.

The reasoning here appears to be 1) FT2 is a trusted and respected Wikipedia administrator and arbitrator 2) no one would attain this position if Peter's allegations had merit 3) therefore, they must be false.

Besides the obvious circularity, you overlook the fact that FT2's rise to power required airbushing of his history and the silencing of his accusers - judging from the Headley Down page and the unorthodox block explanation given in User:FT2/DENY, Peter isn't the first to have received this treatment.

More generally, Wikipedia's promotion procedures don't succeed in eliminating deeply problematic candidates - Essjay is one famous example. Here the problem isn't just a failure to vet, but active and aggressive denial of evidence that is right in front of your face.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Wed 2nd July 2008, 3:17am

[The Joy]

Mod Note: Posts regarding Everyking and Kelly Martin have been moved here. - The Joy

[Peter Damian]

For what ever reason, you have taken it upon yourself to act as FT2's defender, yet you have not recognised that having taken that role for some time you are not uninvolved. You also are playing a dangerous game of bluff - you are assuming that FT2 is clean, and that Peter Damian does not have damaging material. By pushing Peter out, and goading him by deliberately linking his name that you know he is sensitive about, you are ensuring that he will go for the nuclear option. With FT2 out of favour at ArbCom, the timing could not be better from Peter's point of view.

That's exactly right.

The reasoning here appears to be 1) FT2 is a trusted and respected Wikipedia administrator and arbitrator 2) no one would attain this position if Peter's allegations had merit 3) therefore, they must be false.

Besides the obvious circularity, you overlook the fact that FT2's rise to power required airbushing of his history and the silencing of his accusers - judging from the Headley Down page and the unorthodox block explanation given in User:FT2/DENY, Peter isn't the first to have received this treatment.

More generally, Wikipedia's promotion procedures don't succeed in eliminating deeply problematic candidates - Essjay is one famous example. Here the problem isn't just a failure to vet, but active and aggressive denial of evidence that is right in front of your face.

Ryan's action has now caused the nuclear button to be pressed (See email copied below). I was prepared to have the issue sorted out privately before, but this continual representation of me as harrassing and victimising poor FT2 has to stop.

Ryan did you not ask yourself once whether other things had been going on? Did you not think to check a few elementary details before you got block-happy? Let this be a lesson.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Family" <the.xxxxxxxx@btinternet.com>
To: "FloNight" <yyyyy.xxxxxx@gmail.com>
Cc: "Paul August" <xxxxxx.wp@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 7:04 AM
Subject: Re: You were trying to reach me?


> Yes I was trying to reach you! Thatcher managed to clean up the mess in a
> half-reasonable way, but as I am now tarred with the brush of 'harrassment'
> I think the only way to clear my name is to ask for RFAR. I will tidy up
> the material I have collected and present it to Arbcom. I would like this
> in public now, not in private, as previously agreed.
>
> Regards
>
> EDB
>

[dogbiscuit]

Ryan's action has now caused the nuclear button to be pressed (See email copied below). I was prepared to have the issue sorted out privately before, but this continual representation of me as harrassing and victimising poor FT2 has to stop.

Ryan did you not ask yourself once whether other things had been going on? Did you not think to check a few elementary details before you got block-happy? Let this be a lesson.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Family" <the.xxxxxxxx@btinternet.com>
To: "FloNight" <yyyyy.xxxxxx@gmail.com>
Cc: "Paul August" <xxxxxx.wp@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 7:04 AM
Subject: Re: You were trying to reach me?


> Yes I was trying to reach you! Thatcher managed to clean up the mess in a
> half-reasonable way, but as I am now tarred with the brush of 'harrassment'
> I think the only way to clear my name is to ask for RFAR. I will tidy up
> the material I have collected and present it to Arbcom. I would like this
> in public now, not in private, as previously agreed.
>
> Regards
>
> EDB
>

Peter,

If you do not get the response you hope for, I hope you will publish the information here instead, as I do have some sympathy with the view that you have made the allusions to the problem without ever putting up, although I can quite understand why you have taken that line. If Wikipedia will not deal with the issue in a mature way, then it is time for you to use another forum. Feel free to PM me with the information.

[Peter Damian]

If you do not get the response you hope for, I hope you will publish the information here instead, as I do have some sympathy with the view that you have made the allusions to the problem without ever putting up, although I can quite understand why you have taken that line. If Wikipedia will not deal with the issue in a mature way, then it is time for you to use another forum. Feel free to PM me with the information.

Probably 80% of the information is scattered about in threads here. A key piece is the admission that the edits were oversighted. I cannot publish the email where it is admitted that the oversighted edits were indeed FT2's without gross breach of confidence, that is why I am asking the Arbcom publicly to admit to this.

Much of the work is putting all the material into a single place and threading it nicely and putting together arguments where arguments are needed and so on.

I am starting work on that now. This of course prevents me finishing off an important translation that I hoped would be finished by end 2008, but so be it.

Also remember, as I said all along, that the issue is about FT2's slanted editing and blatant abuse of checkuser, i.e. standard Wikipedia stuff. Anyone hoping for some insight into anyone's personal life will be greatly disappointed. I am not going there.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Wed 2nd July 2008, 7:22am

[Proabivouac]

If you do not get the response you hope for, I hope you will publish the information here instead, as I do have some sympathy with the view that you have made the allusions to the problem without ever putting up, although I can quite understand why you have taken that line. If Wikipedia will not deal with the issue in a mature way, then it is time for you to use another forum. Feel free to PM me with the information.

What you're going to see here, one way or another, are some ground rules that specify that some of the evidence - particularly your correspondence regarding the improper oversight - be discussed only in private. It cannot be posted on Wiki because of provacy/a copyvio/etc. The reason for this is to hide evidence of the leadership's wrongdoing, and to make certain that no one else feels confident to judge the fairness of the outcome - it was handled privately, we cannot reveal all our reasoning, trust us. Even those disinclined to trust will be left with little choice.

Don't agree to this. It won't help you. The bottom line is that as long as you're fighting to wipe this blatant (and poorly sourced, and inaccurate) promotion of deviant sexual practices from Wikipedia, you'll have FT2 as an enemy. As an arbitrator and pretty much the leader of the baneful admins' IRC, there is no practical limit to the number of administrators he can solicit to do his bidding, and it only takes one to block you. FT2 must be removed from positions of responsiblity, not just as an arbitrator, but as an administrator, and you must be vindicated and thanked for your service to the community. Short of that, it's just a matter of time before we're in the same position, with IRC-solicited admins opining that you having "run out of chances" and endorsing your ban.

A close examination of this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...use/HeadleyDown
especially blocks such as these,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...age=User:CSIvor
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...age=User:FFodor
which assert the existence of secret evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/DENY

"If you are seeing this message, it is likely to be because a block placed by FT2 led you here. They will have been carefully checked, and often also run past another independent opinion."

and are accompanied by transparent misrepresentations of fact

"also attacking Canada, Paraphilia, Criminal law and Crime scene photography"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...ttack_Zoophilia
cf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CSIvor

- blocks performed by FT2 himself, in blatant violation of the blocking policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes
to ensure that articles in which he is deeply invested, such as Zoophilia and Pederasty, remain in their unsourced POV-pushing state, suggest that FT2 has seriously abused his office for some time now.

Any remedy to the effect that "FT2 and Peter Damian should stay away from one another" 1) will not work, because FT2 can solicit others 2) will implicitly admit that you've been "harassing" FT2, and that they're being nice to you by letting you go with this modest restriction, setting you up for future bans 3) will perpetuate this ongoing abuse of the project and the public.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Wed 2nd July 2008, 7:45am

[Proabivouac]

Ryan Postlethwaite has now brought his campaign against Wikipedia Review to the main page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=224443002

[Ryan Postlethwaite]

Ryan Postlethwaite has now brought his campaign against Wikipedia Review to the main page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=224443002

It's not a campaign against WR at all. I think we get some very good critisism here. The problem is, we have editors that have been harassed here, and there's some threads where people have been outed and they're still here for all to see. It's not fair to the contributors that have been the subject of these outings to glamourise this on the main page.