Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/May 2010 election/Oversight/Ryan Postlethwaite

Ryan Postlethwaite
Hi there. For all those that don't know me, I'm Ryan. I've been here since October 2006 and an administrator since March 2007. I currently serve as a clerk for the Arbitration Committee and I formerly chaired the Mediation Committee.

My reason for requesting the oversight flag is because over the past year, a considerable number of users have contacted me privately with material that needs to be either suppressed oversighted and it's taken time to do as I've had to direct them to the oversight mailing list. It's given me time to think about the flag and how I could use it to help with any backlog that the mailing list might have. Most backlogs on Wikipedia don't mean anything, but this is one where time really is of the essence.

Whilst I believe that the current oversighters work extremely hard and action requests in a timely manner, I believe that with a few more they will be able to work very efficiently.

I hope that over the years that I have earned the trust of the community to use the oversight tool correctly. Should I receive the flag and at any point be unsure as to what to do, I will always request a second opinion from other members of the team. Whilst time is an important factor here, it's also important to get it right first time.

Many thanks for taking the time to read this and thank you in advance for taking the time to vote.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Ryan Postlethwaite

 * Questions from HJ Mitchell
 * 1) If you are granted Oversight access, how do you think that will affect you as an editor and an administrator and do you think that will (or should) affect the way that other editors interact with you?
 * Not at all. The oversight flag is not a hat of importance, it's merely a critical task that needs doing. Oversighters have no higher standing than any other members of the community. That said, I believe it's especially important for oversighters to work in a professional manner when working on requests and work to a higher than expected standard of civility when dealing with users who are making requests. In short, oversighters have no greater power than any other user and so should not change the way they interact with others.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I know it is asked in the questionnaire: Please set out your decision and reasoning if were you to receive a request for this material to be suppressed. Leaky Caldron  12:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you feel it's important for oversighters to reply to email requests to inform the requester of the action you've taken or not taken?
 * Absolutely. If someone has taken the time to request oversight, then I think it's the right thing to do to let them know the outcome of their request. This is especially important when dealing with people outside the project. If there is a delay whilst it is being discussed, then the user requesting the oversight should be kept informed. It's common courtesy to do so, but it also allows individual community members to learn why, or why not, their requests were actioned in the way they were. Hopefully it allows them to learn better when oversight is appropriate.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Question from Keegan
 * 1) Q. How well will you do saying no to a request, and will you actively do it?
 * I think it's obvious that there will be a number of requests that shouldn't be actioned. I'd have no problem turning down a request if it wasn't within policy. That said, if at any point I wasn't sure I'd ask for a second opinion. I know I've used the oversight mailing list in the past when I wasn't too sure in order to get opinions from members of the team - in fact, the last one you answered in an extremely friendly manner, which moves me nicely onto my second point..... When responding negatively to a request, I'd always strive to do it as civilly as possible and offer as much advice to the user in question, both on policy and what options they had available (such as revision deletion).  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Question from Leaky Caldron
 * 1) Q. A couple of weeks ago my talk page was repeatedly vandalised and the edit summaries in particular contained increasingly gross personal attacks and threats. Please look at the edit summaries here:.
 * Per the policy, these requests could potentially be handled by being suppressed. I would stat a discussion on the oversight mailing list if these edits came to my attention as policy requires. There may be an argument that these requests could potentially be handled using normal admin deletion (i.e. deleting the whole talk page and restoring the history minus the diffs), but in the case of such egregious and attacking vandalism, I think that I would err towards to the side of suppressing them using the oversight flag.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Question from User:zzuuzz
 * Other than attempts at outing, what types of revisions should be hidden from administrators?
 * An interesting question - This in many ways is a balancing act between hiding revisions which all users shouldn't see and allowing administrators to have all the information available to them before acting. One obvious area is BLP - if there's potentially libelous material on the project, then I think that would be a good candidate for suppression as that shouldn't be seen by anyone - it's still libeling someone wherever it's at. In some cases vandalism should be suppressed as well, but that's more due to the fact that there are restraints on the number of revisions an administrator can delete. In egregious violations, when someone is being seriously attacked or threatened, there may be a case to suppress this from all users. Another area that policy says can be suppressed is where there's copyright violations, but per policy, this should only be done after a direct statement from WMF counsel - To be honest, I doubt I'd work very much in this area anyway and from what I've seen, it's rarely enforeced.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Question from Tryptofish
 * I hope you don't mind my asking this, but there was recently this incident. Can you assure us that this was a unique event, and that it doesn't portend problems with a new flag? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly honest with you Tryptofish, that was a complete mistake using twinkle for the first time. It completely changed my interface and I wasn't at all aware that Twinkle could be so powerful. I'm fully aware that Oversight is a powerful tool and some actions using it aren't easily reversed - Basically, I now know not to press buttons when I don't know what they do :-) . In short, it was a totally unique event and I can assure you that I learnt plenty of lessons from it!  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hypothetical scenario from bahamut0013
 * This may or not be a softball for you, but please tell me how you would handle this situation: I use the e-mail function to inform you that I have recently recieved some off-wiki threats. In the email, I state that I have used my real name for several years and that my userspace and a few user and article talk pages have information about myself, that if peiced together, could help reveal my identity and location to outing; normally not an issue since I believe in transparency, but the threat of RL harm has me spooked. I request to have this information expunged from the encyclopedia. How would you handle this (please be very detailed)?  bahamut0013  words deeds 21:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an extremely tough question and I would guess is one with no correct answer - people will simply differ in opinions, but let me take a stab at it. As far as the oversight policy goes, oversight can be used for "removal of non-public personal information, such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public." In this case, what you're essentially suggesting is that the user in question made the information public, but then wished to retract this information. I'm not sure exactly how policy would view this - I'd probably have to say that this shouldn't be actioned. It would depend on a number of things though; Firstly, how widely the name was spread across the project. If the name in question could easily be removed (i.e. it was only in a couple of diffs) then there might be an argument towards allowing the request. If it was in a large number of pages, or a large number of diffs would need oversighting then I'd suggest that it wouldn't be actioned. This is one of those situations where I'd always start a discussion on the oversight mailing list to get the thoughts of other oversighters - I couldn't, and wouldn't, decide this off my own back. Another consideration is who made the name public originally - if it wasn't the user in question then it would give greater weight towards allowing the request. A further issue would be whether or not there had been a threat made towards the individual - if someone was attempting to use their personal details then this may also be a reason to allow the request. To give an example; It would be impossible for me to request that every record of my name be oversighted from the project - I've used my real name since I started here and it would be too large a task for the oversight personnel (plus, a good argument would be that I introduced it myself). I have placed my mobile number on my own userpage. If I wanted it removed from the project completely because someone had started making malicious calls to me, then it would only affect my own userpage and there would be relatively few diffs that would need to be oversighted - in this case, although I brought the information onto the project myself, there would be a good case to allow the oversight. Apologies about the waffling, it's just there's a lot of matters to consider. Please feel free to ask a follow up question if you want anything clarifying.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You've already given sufficient explanation and justification for me, so I won't cause you any more grey hairs on it. In any case, I deliberatly made it ambigious enough that you would seek the judgement of others in a tricky situation, which is what I was hoping you would say (the remainder of the answer not being particularly important to me, though I applaud your detailed response). I'm of the opinion that "no man is an island", and somebody who would wade into the surf alone and get swept away doesn't have what it takes.  bahamut0013  words deeds 20:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Question from JamieS93
 * You recently opposed an RfA candidate for making a rollback mistake 10 days prior. Within the CU/OS application period, you made a few deletion mistakes when trying out Twinkle, as outlined above (Q6). I have no problem with people making mistakes, but to be completely honest, it looks like a double-standard here. Feel free to explain in more detail, and please correct me if I'm wrong.
 * I wouldn't say it's double standards for a few reasons; Firstly, HJ Mitchell had concerns stemming from his first RfA about the use of rollback. Whilst one might say it's a minor issue, I felt that he simply hadn't learnt lessons from that first RfA. My second, and perhaps most substantive point is that my deletion error was purely a technical problem - I clicked a button by accident and didn't know what I was doing. The minute it became apparent what I'd done, I immediately went to the admin noticeboard for guidance. HJ Mitchell's mistake was different - he rolled back an edit knowing full well what he was doing - he was using rollback and it wasn't until those concerns were brought to him that he apologised for his error. In short, my mistake was purely technical and my deletions did not reflect what I was trying to achieve whilst HJ Mitchell's mistake was an error or judgment which showed he misunderstood what admin rollback was for.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Question from Happy-melon
 * 1) All CheckUsers and Oversighters are members of the functionaries-en mailing list, a forum for discussion and co-ordination of privacy-related issues which affect any and all areas of Wikipedia. What qualities and perspectives would you bring to such discussions?
 * I think it's fair to say that all the candidates standing will bring fresh blood and insight onto the mailing list - it's always good to have new input and ideas. As I noted in my statement, I'm an Arbitration Committee clerk and also a former chair from the Mediation Committee which means that I have a background in Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms. I think that my experience in these roles will be useful to the mailing list. Both the roles that I've just noted have private mailing lists which do occasionally have private matters discussed in them - I've therefore developed skills in discussing private matters so I wouldn't be coming to functionaries-en blind. I believe I could give sage advice on the mailing list and as already noted, from a fresh perspective.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)