User talk:FT2

• Archived talk page comments: /Archive
  Closed topics are archived to approx. July 31 2008.

Current discussion summaries

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Arbitration Committee proceedings recent changes purge this page view or discuss this template Case requests Currently, there are no requests for arbitration. [edit] Open cases Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024 Mzajac (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) — Case suspended [edit] Recently closed cases (Past cases) Case name Closed Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024 Clarification and Amendment requests Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open. Arbitrator motions No arbitrator motions are currently open. Arbitration Committee proceedings recent changes purge this page view or discuss this template Case requests Currently, there are no requests for arbitration. [edit] Open cases Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024 Mzajac (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) — Case suspended [edit] Recently closed cases (Past cases) Case name Closed Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024 Clarification and Amendment requests Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open. Arbitrator motions No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Wikipedia IRC channel: [1]

Services Link: [2]

Others: society -- religion -- studies -- research -- ap -- asa -- terminology -- emo -- med

RFPC draft

A/guide: WP:SIR, Wikipedia:Canvassing | Contribs tool: [3] | plainlinks: 'Span style="plainlinks"'

Hashes of evidence

IPBE for a user on User:91.108.234.250

Can you please have a look at WP:RFCU/IP#IPBE_for_User:Lorkers if you got the time? Thanks! -- lucasbfr ^{ho ho ho} 10:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Agneau needs your consideration for IP block exemption

Hello FT2. User talk:Agneau has an active unblock request. He has encountered your rangeblock of 91.108.192.0/18. Though he is only an occasional contributor, his visible edits seem to be of high quality. Please consider whether IP block exemption should be granted.

A previous unblock request (visible in the history) stated The IP range of 91.108.192.0/18 includes the gateway of my ISP's broadband connection but I am am a bona fide user - though not a very active one. Could I please have checkuser and IP block exemption? (I suspect the range covers all Orange UK users). EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Tweaking

Hi FT2, I have noticed that you often make long posts, which you then spend some time "tweaking". It may be easier for you, and for editors waiting for you to arrive at a final version of your comments before responding, to use a sandbox to prepare such posts. You can easily start one by clicking on User:FT2/Sandbox. DuncanHill (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I often revisit and rework comments once posted. I use preview, but ... then it still needs rewording. See User talk:FT2/Archive#Preview for a previous take on this. You're right, but it's a habit I find hard to break. I'll try once more though. Thank you! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Psst!

Wikipedia:Search engine indexing. Maybe we can work out something here and then present it to the community, rather than filling the Village Pump with lengthy arguments that bore most people to tears. Jehochman ^Talk 16:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Saw it before this note. Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added a few concerns. I think it is better to disclose the pros and the cons in the narrative and then let the reader decide, per NPOV. Sorry, I did this before noticing the {{Inuse}} notice. Jehochman ^Talk 19:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The {{Inuse}} is mostly so people don't dive in or try to use it until it's ready. Having the appearance of a 2nd parallel page (ie same topic in discussion at the same time) is confusing and disruptive; instead, VPP shows there is quite a significant level of interest and a more formal proposal is now needed to be prepared. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Promised clarifications

It is now almost 30 days since you promised to make a more detailed response to questions about your role in and knowledge of the oversight matter [4] [5] and 15 days since I emailed you a list of requested clarifications and you replied "That was roughly my thinking too." Thatcher 18:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

See this. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the matter to which I am referring has nothing to do with the rest of Arbcom and there is no need to involve them. You voluntarily made statements which I believe require correction and clarification. I thought you had agreed in principle to those corrections and clarifications. Nothing that I suggested needs to be said requires the approval of Arbcom or anyone else, or searching any archives beyond our own Dec 20-22 correspondence. Thatcher 20:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It has everything to do with them. This is an area where much dispute has gone on, and there are some 10 new arbitrators with little to no genuine background. Much of the past dialog was non-arbcom, and so the 2007-08 arbs don't each have everything either. There is a legitimate wish and interest to understand it by the committee, and two arbs have both posted to SlimVirgin to confirm it's not being ignored. With considerable discussion in the background already on some matters, things are not being ignored and filling the committee in first on the full background and evidence, and being open to their queries first, is a reasonable approach. I don't imagine it will need that long, and the link above is your reassurance that I had taken time to reassure SlimVirgin myself, without being asked, lest she wonder if it was forgotten. Two other arbitrators of the new appointees, then confirmed this. I hope this reassures -- as I said I have proactively kept SV informed on-wiki, and stated the intention to be open; it's not as immediate though. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom can spend a month chewing old bones if you can persuade them to do so, frankly I think they have better things to do. If you once said "X" but the truth of the matter is "X (prime)" or "X+Y" or even "Y", you don't need permission of 17 other people to say so. Thatcher 21:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi FT2, I also ask that you address the issue now, please. You were first asked onwiki about the oversighting of the edits on July 4, 2008 by Alex Bakharev. You replied that this was the first you'd heard of it. [6] You were asked again on November 25 and 27 by Tom Harrison, Jehochman, and Giano. You repeated that the first you knew about it was in July, and that you'd give a full response in a few days or after that weekend. [7]

I asked you on December 9 whether it was true that the first you knew of the oversighting was in July. [8] You replied that you'd answer soon in a more appropriate venue. [9] I asked again on December 16. You said you'd respond when you had a clear desk, and that I should ask again around Christmas, plus or minus one day. [10]

As three weeks has passed since then, I hope you'll agree to respond in full within the next day or so. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin and Thatcher. A week has elapsed since I mentioned at User_talk:SlimVirgin#Happy Christmas :) that we would need a "few weeks to do [this] properly". I am sorry that we havent been able to provide an update to indicate that we have the "full disclosure"; it hasnt been provided yet. However this is not going to be dropped, so please hold off for one more week so the committee has the full set of facts. Cheers, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I don't understand your role in this. I am aware that there are a number of ongoing internal discussions at Arbcom, but it was FT2, acting as an individual and as a party to a dispute, who volunteered certain information which now appears (in my opinion) to require correction. He can chose to make those clarifications or not; I don't understand why you are taking a role here. Thatcher 12:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  This is amazing, why has the committee not already the facts? I also think David Gerard's role in this matter needs too to be investigated and explained. Giano (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  Giano, I dont know what facts the prior committee did know, but they havent appeared to have all the facts (based on my own knowledge of it) or perhaps the other 2008 sitting arbs are waiting for the full disclosure from FT2, so as to not muddy the water with their own views and/or facts so far collated. I do believe that the sitting committee will very soon have a full disclosure of the facts from FT2. The delay of a week since FT2 promised a full disclosure to the new committee isnt perfect, but permissions must be sought, and given this time of year, a little grace doesnt go astray. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  Regarding David Gerard's role, we should take this one step at a time. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

One step at a time - a step? I have seen danse corps ballerinas on points dancing as cygnets take greater and more adventurous steps. FT2 and Gerard have had ample time to explain their conduct. At the end of the day I doubt there is an acceptable explanation - or we would have heard it. It is looking as though the Arbcom has a cuckoo in its nest! Giano (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The 2009 ArbCom practicing the Waltz of the Cygnets from Act II of Swan Lake

I am sure you can appreciate that the difference is that the 2009 Arbcom hasnt practiced this particular movement before. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thatcher, my role is to try to ensure that FT2 has the space required to provide an unabridged statement to the sitting committee in order that we have heard his side so that the committee members will soon be able to form their own views on how we move forward. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The truth can be told quickly. A good lie takes time to fabricate. I strongly urge all parties involved in this matter to immediately explain themselves. The speed of disclosure is essential to restoring trust. It is my belief that there is a perfectly good explanation for the events. I am baffled why this explanation has not yet been provided yet. Nothing could be said that would be worse than the appearance of evasion. The needs of the Committee do not excuse the needs for a prompt explanation to the Community. Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Jayvdb, are you saying you need to ensure that FT2 has space to tell the truth? I don't think either the committee or the community is especially yearning for an "unabridged" version of "yes" or "no" from FT2. The question on the table isn't whether or not the 2009 arbcom has practiced dancing like prima ballerinas before; it's how long FT2 needs to practice shuffling his feet. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC).

I've been asked to provide full details; I'm doing so. It requires full comprehensive details of a matter taking place during the course of a year, from a very wide range of on- and off-site venues, and comprehensive disclosure is what is being delivered since I have no plans to do this degree of research in year-old archives again for this. It also has to fit round my work and others' work, my real life, and other historic matters, and coincides with a family season, a new arbcom season and the start of the working year. I am sure some would dash a 3 line note off in moments and be reckless with it; not here.

Incidentally, Giano, while we're waiting, two quick questions for you. When did you first learn about the specific edit being oversighted (revision 4557792 I think)? What was your opinion of it (as content I mean, assuming you've seen the edit)? Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

When did I learn? What was my opinion? My timing and opinion is neither here nor there. It's not up to me to be answering questions. You have had more than ample time to come up with some answers, and so far you have not. Without exception - the truth is always quick and easy, clearly something is not so easy here. So stop prevaricating, stop trying to ask others questions and give some credible answers or resign. Giano (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a very simplistic viewpoint. It serves simple cases well, but not complex ones. Complex cases benefit from careful checking, for example of large archives, with review item by item where a search cannot be specified, to ensure accuracy, and to ensuring the balancing of that with a few overriding issues if applicable, such as privacy of users, WMF requirements, ability to cite emails and getting permission if needed, and so on. In this case since I'm being asked about someone else's actions, that were discussed by others, and in others' emails, I'd like to be sure I've done that task carefully. I doubt anyone else will do the work if I don't. Your answer, which is a quick and easy one, might help. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to wait another week if it'll mean the issue is laid to rest, though I hope you'll bear in mind that the delay is doing you no favours. The key question, again, is not about someone else's actions, but about you, namely whether it's true that you first heard about the oversighting in July 2008. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt anyone else will do the work if I don't. It sounds like Thatcher has done plenty of work, and has reached a conclusion, too; one that's embarrassing for you. I hope you realize that as long as you cling to your arbitratorhood like a limpet, you're embarrassing not just yourself, but the entire committee. Bishonen | talk 00:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC).

A good example of "Assume bad faith", Bishonen. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Good example of "offering a sanctimonious cliché in lieu of facing that you've been caught with your fingers in the moral cashbox," FT2. That should impress your fellow arbs and Jimbo. Bishonen | talk 10:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC).

Whatever happened to WP:NPA? Sticky Parkin 23:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And you're a good example of a sycophant, Sticky Parkin. Bishonen | talk 23:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC).

Hardly lol. It depends on whether I think someone is acting ok or not in an individual circumstance. I'm not defending anything FT may or may not have done, I'm just saying there are ways we are supposed to talk on here, although of course some people seem to be able to talk however they like and get away with it without the normal rules applying. Sticky Parkin 23:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Very true Sticky Parkin, some editors, you for instance, do indeed feel able to say what they like about another editor, no matter how farcical or ill-informed they happen to be. However, what we are here for is some answers (simple monosyllabic ones) from FT2 - or is he still hoping that Jimbo will leap, as he did on me, and attack anyone who dares to raise even an eyebow at FT2's behaviour? I would still quite like to know why Gerard oversighted, mid election, his friends edits in the first place, but I expect an enlightening and satisfactory answer to that is too much to hope for. Well it is early days yet for the new Arbcom to get their act together, I shall be patient with them for a few more weeks yet. However, I am starting to drum my fingers on the desk - just one of my many irritating habits Giano (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

All I'm saying is WP:NPA, so you can't say I'm having a go at anyone. Anyway, I'll leave you to your "fun".:) Sticky Parkin 17:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Fun, Sticky, is something you have (privately) chatting with Checkusers; there is nothing funny about FT2's behaviour or Jimbo's failure to address the situation. Giano (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Tick tock. Thatcher 14:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, Giano, I don't think there's any checkusers I privately chat to at the moment. You must be confusing me with someone else. Although I'm sure the checkusers are lovely as a rule. All I meant by 'fun' is this looks a bit like bullying, maybe that's just me. Jayvb has said arbcom are dealing with it; why not nag them rather than persistently targeting one individual? Sticky Parkin 18:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Because, Sticky, this is not Arbcom's problem, except in the margins. FT2 made some misstatements; I believe he has an obligation to correct them, especially as he holds a position of influence. Arbcom's interest is understandable. They want to know what happened so that they will have their public response ready, assuming one is necessary once FT2 makes his corrections. But that does not relieve FT2 of the responsibility of making the corrections. Or do you think that a public announcement from Arbcom that "We have read FT2's explanation and are in agreement that no corrections are required" would close the matter. (And I assure you, no such announcement is forthcoming.) FT2 has a moral responsibility to correct/clarify certain past statements. The community will then respond. (Perhaps the community will shrug its collective shoulders and say, "Come on, Thatcher, Is That All There Is?") It is a courtesy to the other 16 members of Arbcom to give them time to become familiar with the situation before they are forced to confront it. But that's all it is, a courtesy, and time's almost up. Thatcher 18:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've held, on numerous occasions, that responsiveness is an important point for any active user, and the more so if entrusted with admin or other access. I wrote it myself into Wikipedia's admin policy. Nonetheless as you may have gathered, this is not simple nor a yes/no, and I am myself waiting as a result. There has been considerable dialog and consultation on it, which may attest that others the community trusts also find it necessary.

This is not just about "disclosure and the community", as the above post implies. Various beliefs are mistaken, but the evidence is for Arbcom only. The timing of events is a second significant factor. A third part is the immense bad faith in this area. A good disclosure provides answers, not half-answers or mere fodder for drama and bad faith. Asking what manner of disclosure is best matters too, since once started it will need to be seen through. The rest of the committee are considering their advice to my questions. I'm waiting on that, rather than assuming, diving in, making wild guesses, assuming bad faith, and so on. I would rather do this once, properly (exactly as I prepared my evidence for Arbcom on it once and properly). My disclosure to Arbcom was about 105 K. All of it was solid evidence, email cites, diffs, evidenced timelines, and the like.

How much of that 105 K I should post, and in what manner or place, and with what considerations, is the advice I have asked.

I set out some time ago to disclose, and like you, I too am frustrated it has not been as easy as "yes or no" like I had thought. I have had strong and frank discussions in between about why I feel it is right to go ahead, and I have heard compelling reasons why it's better regardless to have a reply. It's not my wish nor my choice, and I have suggested a number of ways to disclose, but with great reluctance it is probably best to seek counsel. The matter isn't vanishing, nor is any of it active or changing; time is not going to change anything. So patience is appropriate here, even though (like other arbitration matters) a quick answer would be reassuring. I ask patience that this is not the simple point it seems, and that I will act once I have any definitive answer to my emails, as soon as I have it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

105K? I can say what needs to be said in 3 sentences, and give a decent precis of your defense in three short paragraphs. Thatcher 19:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be helpful. I lost the thread around "The rest of the committee are considering their advice to my questions." Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You did? My brain started to erode much earlier. It's all gone now. Bishonen | talk 19:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC).

Happy New Year + a follow up

G'day FT - and a happy new year to you and yours :-) - With apologies if this has been resolved elsewhere (I haven't spotted it) - I wondered if you'd had the chance to reply to Slim way up there when she wrote; "I'm asking you now to show some of that absolute integrity, accountability, and approachability. When you said in July 2008 that you had not previously heard that your earliest edits had been oversighted in December 2007 — during the ArbCom election — were you telling the truth? [11]" - understanding what went on there is sort of on the edge of my radar, and it'd be good to resolve. best, Privatemusings (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

geez... dunno what happened there - I missed the thread above completely.... oh well, add my voice to the 'please just answer this question' brigade :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've thoroughly read the thread above now! - c'mon FT - please stop being evasive - either you lied to Alex or not - seems to me that maybe you're sort of saying you did, and what's stalling things is your seeking permission to fully explain why. That's about the most charitable explanation I can think of, but regardless - please just answer the question - sunlight being the best disinfectant 'n all that... Privatemusings (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: WP:SPI

Hey, thats not a problem. Sock puppet investigation is, justifiably, more important than our little wikiproject so I'm perfectly happy for the new sock puppet investigation page to take the WP:SPI shortcut, I've already switched to using WP:SPIR instead and relinked WP:SPI to the sock puppet page.

Thank you very much for asking, your tact was very much appreciated, most people wouldn't bother.

For your troubles, have a kitteh

File:Catcron.gif

Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. And don't feed him too much corn!

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 03:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, FT2. You have new messages at Od Mishehu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Blocked

I'm afraid I've found it unavoidable to block you for disruption in relation to the thread "Promised clarifications" above, FT2. Please see ANI. Bishonen | talk 21:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC).

• A request - I asked Bishonen to reconsider this. However, I also ask that no one unilaterially unblock. This is an extremely delicate situation and any action right now may result in many problems, including possible Wheel Warring. We really do not need this. Please lets talk and not resort to hasty actions. Bishonen, please reconsider. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, time was we blocked editors for disruption. Blocking to get attention and make a fuss doesn't seem very sensible to me. --TS 21:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

RFAR

I have named you at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Bishzilla. You may wish to make a statement. Durova^Charge! 22:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Necessary Clarification

In his first detailed statement on the oversight matter [12], FT2 made material misstatements of fact requiring clarification.

1. Contrary to FT2's statement that he had no memorable contact with David Gerard and that David had "never encountered" him as of July 2007, FT2 and David Gerard did in fact meet personally sometime prior to December 6, 2007, as evidenced by an email from Gerard to Arbcom-L on that date.

Defense: FT2's defense as I understand it is two-fold. First, Wikipedia Review was attempting to "out" him and he wanted to avoid giving them what amounted to confirmation of his general geographic location. Second, the real point of the statement was that he and Gerard were not "good friends", and that there was no "fix" to get him elected to Arbcom by oversighting the edits.

My argument For the record, I do not think that the edits would have changed the outcome of the election. Wikipedia is influenced strongly by counter-cultural and alternative trends, and very few people (if any) would have had a problem with a couple of 3 year old edits. FT2 also has the right to protect his personal information as he sees fit. He could have made a truthful statement that was vague and non-specific, or remained silent. Having chosen to make a detailed statement, he had an obligation to make a truthful one. Using as proof an Arbcom-L message from July 2007 while ignoring the message from December 6 was intentionally deceptive.

2. Contrary to FT2's statement that he only found out when the oversight log was fixed (in October) and contrary to his statement that he first heard about the oversight matter in July [13], Jimbo discussed that fact that edits had been oversighted in an email to FT2 dated December 11 2007. (Furthermore, Peter Damian and FloNight raised the matter in emails to Arbcom-L on April 22 and May 2 2008, respectively.

Defense FT2 states that he did not notice the requests for information about the oversighted edits in the April and May emails since they were not the main subjects of the messages, and that he just forgot about the December 11 message.

My argument It is admittedly peculiar that FT2 would send me a copy of the December 11, 2007 email if he were trying to hide it. Could he really have "just discovered it" in his email program? I find this hard to believe. The email came in the context of Jimbo vetting FT2 for Arbcom and FT2 explaining why the edits cited by someone else were no big deal. I don't remember every email I received last December but I think if someone was accusing me of what FT2 was being accused of and I had to explain myself to Jimbo in order to secure an Arbcom appointment, I think I might remember.

3. Although he does not seem to specifically state as much, the whole tone and content of the message is intended to convey the message that FT2 did not ask for oversight and did not know about it. In fact, FT2 has told me that he asked several admins for help dealing with what he considered defamation on a blog. David Gerard was one of them.

Defense FT2 says he asked several admins for "help" but did not specifically ask for oversight.

Argument Maybe so. The problem is that the message overall is deceptive in that it presents an argument that FT2 did not ask for help and did not know what kind of help had been provided, when in fact he did ask for help and did know at the time how he had been helped.

Conclusion The oversight mess ought never have happened. Having happened, it could have been dealt with by a simple public acknowledgment of David's mistake and apology, something I hope the Review Board is prepared to do should it become necessary. Having been revealed in November, FT2 had a responsibility to tell the truth, or at least keep silent. Having acknowledged to me on December 22 that these clarifications were appropriate, there is no credible excuse for a further 3 week delay. While it is to Arbcom's advantage to have a chance to review the matter before making a public comment, it is only to FT2's advantage to delay publication if he thinks that during the delay he can persuade Arbcom to come to his defense. I don't consider that particularly honorable behavior. I think that one purpose of the delayed and lengthy discussion among the Arbitrators is to persuade them that these small untruths are insignificant in the larger scheme of events (hence the 105KB explanation FT2 referred to above). I just don't believe you can build a larger truth if your building blocks include smaller untruths. Thatcher 00:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to niggle, but couldn't he have not had significant contact with DG prior to July 2007 and also have met him sometime prior to December 2007? Is it possible there was some confusion relating to the oversight edits that made FT2 overlook the issue in December of 2007, but come to a new understanding of the seriousness of the situation nearly a year later? Is it possible that he asked for help from multiple admins, but wasn't at the time specifically informed that some of whatever form of help he received came as oversight of some edits? I'm not saying all of these "possibilities" are necessarily true, only that you (and others) have taken essentially the most negative interpretation of events as true instead. Now that all this urgently required information is available to the public, hopefully the clock will start ticking down on when everyone here can find some other way to enjoy their time on Wikipedia. Avruch ^T 01:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Further, and maybe this is just a deficiency on my part, nothing about his message suggests that he did not ask for assistance with the defamation issue. In fact, while it isn't stated directly its implied - obviously the defamation concern related to himself, and that he's aware of efforts to mitigate it suggests he asked for some assistance. I'm also curious - what possible purpose could he have had for misstating the date at which he was first notified of the oversight issue? Where is the benefit for him? Was the oversight log available in December 2007, did he have access to it at that time, and would that indicate that his explanation of needing to wait until the log was fixed to look into it is false? If the log was broken in December, or he didn't have access to it until sometime later and it was broken then, then why would he lie? If he was simply incorrect, then who cares? I'm sure seeming to defend FT2 at this point is wiki-political suicide, but while I understand the seriousness of an arbitrator lying to cover up misconduct... That doesn't seem to be the only possible conclusion to draw at this point, and as Bishonen just this evening pointed out - AGF is a core principle of Wikipedia. Avruch ^T 01:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

When he was asked about the oversight matter in July, the log was broken. However, he had exchanged emails with Jimbo about it in December, so he didn't need the log. Although perhaps he really did just forget, I am not a mind reader. I feel it is necessary to explain that the issue had been brought to his attention several times prior to when he said it had. He can explain why he did not deal with it before December 2008. Thatcher 02:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Good grief, is this what all the fuss is about? Somebody made some edits and somebody else oversighted them. I'm really worried to see that such a trivial matter can so easily become a cause celebre. --TS 01:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't care about the oversighted edits themselves. I accept that David goofed and apologized. I do not think there was a conspiracy to fraudulently elect FT2. I do think FT2 was less than truthful in discussing this issue over the past months, and that is an issue for an arbitrator. Thatcher 02:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Election fraud? The person who brought it up, a quality contributor of five years, banned for his efforts? Pull your head out of your ass, Tony. --Duk 01:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not quite that simple, although an explanation about the relationship between that block and this issue might be helpful. Actually, I kind of agree with Tony that this isn't as big a deal as some are making it, at least as far as FT2's concerned. I'm more concerned about David Gerard's misuse of the oversight tool. Cla68 (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

In a project where editors are anonymous, we only have one's contributions to judge them by. FT2's contributions were falsified to hide embarrassing edits and help his election. If this is allowed to stand the project will suffer greatly. David Gerard's misuse of the oversight tool is only one facet. --Duk 02:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

FT2, please resign from the ArbCom, and as checkuser and oversighter. The very long statements and the requests for delays are serving to obscure what a simple matter this is, namely that you were asked an important question onwiki, and you appear to have lied in response. Regardless of any other issue, that means you must resign and allow the new ArbCom to retain the trust of the community that has just elected it. It's time to fall on your sword. People will respect you for it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• If people, in possession of the facts, think this was no big deal, then I will be happy to live with that. Thatcher 02:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to Thatcher

I hope this Arbcom will not assess people on anything other than facts and evidence, and conclusions drawn from them. Not hearsay and conclusions drawn from it.

Thatcher - I respect you, and for you, this whole matter cannot be an easy matter to decide upon. I cannot comment fully on #1 and #3 as they touch on various people including myself and Peter Damian. I have a commitment to avoid as best I can talking about Damian on-wiki. I made that commitment seriously, and I will do my best to keep it. So some parts of your explanations cannot be fully discussed. Nonetheless even excluding those, there is material above which is in serious error. That, at least, I can clear up.

A) Emails - What you find unlikely, is very heavily evidenced indeed at Arbcom.

I didn't just "avoid" Damian. I had not one, but three separate rounds of emails on the Arbcom mailing list, and other dialogs, that I would consider it grossly improper to be shown any email by him which might relate to a ban appeal, and if Arbcom would not hold the discussion privately I would ensure I would not read any such myself. Peter Damian was planning an appeal. It would be grossly improper for any arb to be party to the deliberations who was involved in the case. I asked to not be shown such mails; then I asked again; then I asked a third time. I stated it was important to me that Damian knew he would have a fair hearing, and that I would take steps not to read mails that might be about it. Emails including a Damian email, I stopped and archived immediately. One email i replied to was in fact a reply to my query. I top-answered it on my concern alone, and sent it.

Significance: Your assumption was grossly mistaken and had you waited for Arbcom you would have found this. There was no way at all I would have read either of the two emails you reference above, and that is hard evidenced by a heavy duty dialog emphasizing the importance of ethically avoiding doing so, even by chance.

B) Jimbo mail - Jimbo indeed emailed me on December 11. This puzzled you, so you decided It is admittedly peculiar that FT2 would send me a copy of the December 11, 2007 email if he were trying to hide it. Could he really have "just discovered it" in his email program? I find this hard to believe.

Again, Thatcher... you lacked background information on the privacy matters. This email was not "out there". It was from Jimbo to myself, and not one other person on or off wiki knew of its existance. That's crucial. And Jimbo forgot it himself (he had admitted he couldn't remember most of the December issues). I discovered it because, for the first time in a year, I was sifting my old emails from that era. Why did I find it just then? Because (check the timing) that was when Peter Damian's RFAR appeal was happening, and I was preparing evidence, so for the first time in a year I had to search for and review the Damian-related material in the archive folder.

What was my reaction? And this is crucial. Put yourself in this position. In July I told people I hadn't heard of a matter. In December I found that I had been sent an email on it... and I was the only person on the planet to know of it. Jimbo might have, but he had said he'd forgotten it all. Not one other person knew. What did I do? I emailed Jimbo CC David Gerard with full disclosure to say "I have come across this, I think I need to disclose it." Can you think of a single reason a dishonest person would do so? It is an act of only high ethics and integrity, to self report a matter that nobody else could possibly know, or could ever find out.

But suppose you ask if I might have remembered it. After all, email from Jimbo! This is where you got it wrong yet again. Context. The middle of the Arbcom election, a 6 week marathon with a 400 K answers page, so intense I took a wikibreak just before Dec 13, I received an email... to tell me that Jimbo is happy with my answers, and "oh by the way" some edits got oversighted but they will be fixed by the devs. That message was a blur (no action needed, mid election) and gone in hours, as was anything other than email answering and question answering. The current arbs know how tough the election is. It could have been a Nobel Prize and I would have archived and forgotten the way I was feeling with election stress. I took a wikibreak mid arbcom election [14]. Says it all.

The question by Alex? That was answered in a brief online session..... the day after an immediate member of the family died, the day before I had to bury him/her, in the immediate storm of the OM case, and with a broken PC. In that context when someone asked "can I confirm or deny X" my answer was "I cant as I dont have access, and its the first Ive heard of it". And it was said honestly and to try and help.

It should also be said that most references to this were just "the edits" or "the oversighted edits". Damian wanted "administrators" to handle it. It was vague. I had slightly more devastating things to do at the time... like gather a family and various kids within the family, and tell them a loved one had died. THAT was December 2007, and THAT was July 4. Some holiday, eh?

Significance: You got this really badly wrong.

• I didn't read the emails because I would not be party to Damian having any fear of unfair hearing. This is a very strongly evidenced statement.
• I had fairly demonstrably zero motive to disclose save for utter high ethics since nobody knew.
• The Dec 2007 email came in the middle of my roughest patch on-wiki, and the reply which you find inaccurate came in the middle of a death, OM, and a computer meltdown.

C) "help" - Last, does it need saying that asking for help was asking for technical help in connection to a defamatory blog post. I asked a wide range of people if anyone knew anything about "take-down" notices, Google caching, and the like. Arbcom has in evidence, a sample of such a dialog and the name of the user concerned. The help I got was in relation to that. I asked almost everyone I knew of any technical nature. And indeed, I found someone who knew how. That too was evidenced at Arbcom.

Significance: You assumed badly yet again. You assume with zero basis whatsoever "[he] did know at the time how he had been helped". Of course I did. I was helped by removal of a defamatory post. But I was completely unaware that any oversighting took place. David Gerard and I spoke of it in October 2008... which may itself in turn evidence one other thing.

In July I told Alex B, that I would find what had happened (if anything) when the log was up. On October 9 the Oversight Log was notified to Arbcom as restored. By October 10 I had checked, and found out what had gone on. That was before anyone was asking about it. That too is evidenced completely. That shows, I think, diligence, to follow it up.

Thatcher... you were unable to believe you didn't know the full story. You forum shopped this whole drama with Jimbo, the wiki, and Arbcom. Failing that, and even being told that Arbcom was looking into it and would resolve it, knowing I had told you there was more to it than that -- you dumped your complete guesswork on the wiki as "facts", and this is the result.

I have just one question. Do you plan to contest any of the above corrections? Because every statement above is evidenced to the ground, and is bedrock solid. Even down to Damian's own tacit admission (according to you) that the oversighted edit would not have swayed the election (it didn't), and Giano's view that the edit as an edit, was not an apparent problem. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You say you made your July 2008 claim (that it was the first you'd heard of the oversighting) in haste and in the middle of a personal crisis, and therefore it wasn't a lie, but an error. But you repeated the same claim on November 27, 2008 in a post on this page: "they [the oversighted edits claims] were first mentioned to me in July ..." [15] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The key evidence that this was not so was Jimbos email. But Jimbo's email turned up during Damian's RFAR evidence review.... after Nov 27. Also, July 4 was when I first took an interest in them (which is when you remember things from). As at Nov 27, for both these reasons, I still had that belief and replied as I did. I believed that to be so, until December 9, when I immediately recognized the error and emailed Jimbo and David Gerard to notify them and ask advice how to disclose it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

But you were told about the oversighting on December 11, 2007 (in an e-mail from Jimbo), and on April 22, 2008 and May 2, 2008 (in e-mails from FloNight and Peter Damian). Are you saying you received or read none of these e-mails — or didn't remember that you'd received or read them — until after November 27, 2008? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

He said that exact thing, above. Avruch ^T 03:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see FT2 confirm that clearly and succinctly — without surrounding it with a thousand other words — namely that he did not read, or did not recall reading, Jimbo's December 2007 e-mail, or FloNight and Peter Damian's April and May 2008 e-mails, alerting him to the oversighting of his first edits to Wikipedia, until after November 27, 2008 — even though he acknowledges that he knew about the oversighting by July 2008 at the latest. In other words that, even when alerted to the oversighting in July 2008 by Alex B, he still did not recall already having been told about it at least three times, one of those times by Jimbo Wales. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

FT2 did say in one of his emails to me from December 2008 that he had deliberately avoided reading Arbcom-L messages about Peter Damian. He says above that he was so busy he missed Jimbo's email, and he said in an email to me regarding that message from Jimbo, To not note an obscure and transient email during an immensely busy time is not a crime. To not recollect it 7 months later and say one has not heard of it, is not a crime either. Memory is not infallible - mine's good, but this was passing and trivial and quickly forgotten in December 2007. Make of that what you will. Thatcher 04:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

SV - a quick answer that I hope meets your need. 1/ On July 4, when I wrote that post, I believed it to be honest and accurate. 2/ I continued to believe it to be accurate at all times (namely that I had first heard of it on July 4) up until December 9 2008 when I found an email in my archives related to it from an earlier date and immediately sought advice. 3/ My actions in that time, including checking for myself the day I heard the oversight log was back, and disclosure of an email nobody else on the planet could possibly ever know existed if I didn't tell them, evidence my honest belief and sincerity - that I was willing to be embarrassed for memory lapse rather than hide a matter from the community that I could never be "called" on if I hid it, is no small thing. The reason for that is extremely well evidenced at Arbcom, namely, the ethical imperative not to read Damian-related emails being a party in his appeal, and my strong determination that even if sent them by Arbcom against my will I had taken steps not to accidentally read them. Those emails are 100% citable on-wiki (since I wrote them and need no permission to do so) and verifiable (since they were sent to Arbcom). Let me know if you need them cited or if this statement is enough. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

FT2, why don't you admit, right now, that you made a mistake by not correcting yourself on or about December 9 when you discovered the error? If you say something you later discover was not correct, it is very easy to issue a correction, and you should never need permission to issue one. I had to do something like that myself just a couple days ago.[16] It was no big deal. Jehochman ^Talk 14:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

1. You are entitled to disagree with my interpretations and I expect you to do so. Nevertheless the fact remains that you stated you had not met David Gerard, when you had, and you stated you did not know the edits were oversighted, when you did.
2. You did say in your emails to me that you had been deliberately avoiding reading Arbcom emails that mentioned the Peter Damian case.
3. You should have taken David's advice of Dec 9, 2008 to reveal everything honestly. Instead, you have spent 35 days delaying, using Arbcom and Peter Damian as excuses. You did not need Jimbo's permission to say on-wiki, "I just found an email from 2007 where Jimbo talks about oversight, that I had honestly forgotten." Yes, that would have been hard for some people to swallow, but easier then than now, or whenever in the future you might have decided to post it. Similarly, you can't hide behind Peter Damian and Arbcom on the issue of whether or not you knew David Gerard before the edits were oversighted. You volunteered on Dec 1 that you had not met, you quoted from a July 2007 email to prove it. How can it possibly require the permission of Peter Damian and/or Arbcom for you to restate the timeline accurately? Both Jimbo and FloNight told you your statement was misleading and asked you to correct it. All the Arbitrators can see the Dec 6 2007 email from David Gerard saying he met you and what a great guy you are. You would have had to explain then, as you did to me, that the point was that David "barely knew" you and would not have "fixed" an election for you; valid points, but I never said the election was fixed for you.
4. I dispute your characterization of the content of Jimbo's email as an "oh by the way" reference to the oversighted edits, but I do not have permission to quote the email.
5. "Forum shopping"? I contacted Jimbo and yourself. On December 22 I wrote you with 4 proposed clarifications (#3 and 4 are combined in my above post) and said, "If you want to publicly walk back your problematic statements and let the community take over I will certainly end my part in this discussion." You replied, "That was roughly my thinking too." After 15 days of no further communications, I emailed my concerns to Arbcom, and posted a very brief note here. Today I posted essentially the same things I mailed Arbcom. You call this forum shopping, how do you suggest I should have handled it?
6. I have not even mentioned yet your phone call to me of December 4, which, although not the only factor in my resignation, was the tipping point. It is impossible to make an NPOV characterization of an upsetting personal phone call, but I really don't think you acted in that phone call with any great deal of ethics, and I certainly have problems with an arbitrator, who is also a party to a dispute, calling an admin on the phone and contesting an unblock decision for 45 minutes. This is not a matter of factual clarification, but could certainly be included in an RFC.
7. Finally, returning to the December 11 2007 email from Jimbo, this is not a nice thing of me to say, perhaps, but I feel I have to get it off my chest. Disclosing the Dec 11 2007 email is the act of an ethical person, but it is also the act of someone who is utterly convinced that everything they have done is correct and doubters can be converted as long as you explain it at enough length. You've had 35 days to make just a few simple statements, instead you have made excuses and called various delays. It is obvious now that all this delay has been so you can put together your explanation for Arbcom (105K, that's roughly 15,000 words) so that whatever the deviation between the plain facts and your statements, there would be an explanation, and back-up from Arbcom that it was no big deal. Honestly, it really would have been no big deal had you corrected it yourself on December 6 when you found the emails, and when Jimbo and FloNight asked you to. And, if I'm being honest, I still find it difficult to believe that you completely forgot about Jimbo's email, or, that having legitimately forgotten, you exhibited no intellectual curiosity or due diligence about the matter at all. To be blunt, you were accused of bad things, the accuser and his accusations were made to vanish into thin air, and you never wanted to know more. Jimbo's email telling you that he was satisfied with your explanation of the edits but there was still the problem of oversight was "passing and trivial." You never, before the oversight log was fixed in October, went back to look at those diffs and found them missing. You never asked of Jimbo or Arbcom-L or oversight-L, "hey, what happened to those edits Damian was flogging on his blog." You never, even in July when asked by AlexB, performed the simple experiment of searching your gmail archive for messages containing the terms "Renamed user 4" and "oversight". Let all these things be true then, and let the community decide. Like I said, maybe the community's verdict will be that I am wrong, I have wronged you, and judge me accordingly. Thatcher 04:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Quick answers:

1. I stated accurately about David Gerard; the rest of this is not something to discuss on-wiki. It has however been discussed with Arbcom. The statement was honest and reasonable.
2. Again you aren't thinking about timing. A matter like this needs disclosure, and the disclosure is not simple. Most evidence is private. I can make the statement above because (and only because) I have made prior disclosure of a lot of privacy related material to Arbcom (arb emails, etc), who can verify it. Now look at the timing which you keep forgetting. Dec 9 was mid arb-election. The existing 2008 arbcom was moribund, and the new arbs would be seen as independent; also opening a major arbcom drama by disclosing a matter then saying the evidence couldn't be checked would have been gross drama. In effect there was no arbcom suitable to make disclosure to and take advice of, until this one was appointed. The new arbitrators were appointed December 20. On Dec 24 I sent an email titled "Heads up (personal)" stating an intent to make full disclosure, and on Dec 26 I asked a colleague to check a statement; their view was to verify my proposed approach with the committee, so on December 26 I sent an email to the committee titled "Urgent - advice sought" in which I stated "An urgent request for advice today, please. I have some accounting and disclosure to do to the community. Some is completely unavoidable, others I have a very deep wish to be open on instead.", and asked for views on a statement, on RFC, and on RFAR. With the exception of a short delay in January while I worked on other matters, the time since then has involved discussion of this case, OM, and other arbcom agenda items (this isn't the only matter needing input from the new committee as they have said).
3. It was completely a "by the way" email. At that point of the election, anything with a style of "here's some information on something I'm going to do, nothing needs doing by you, I'm getting it fixed" is a cursory skim and move to archive. An email from the Pope saying "you are being beatified would have been archived in moments too, as was anything that didn't need action or response.
4. You posted to Jimbo with your demands and views, then Arbcom, then repeatedly to my talk page despite knowing it was actively under discussion, and now this.
5. If you want to drag out the phone call, then you might include the part where I asked explicitly and very unmistakably if you were okay and when you said you had reservations, I stepped back to avoid impacting on them and went with your view on it. Again this is in the context of "party" not "arbitrator" -- you were explicitly in the process of undoing without consent as a sole admin, an anti-harassment ban that you lacked full knowledge of (Arbcom has the full details you never knew), that had previously been deemed "Arbcom only" (email of Oct 21 2008 by Arbcom in which I recused: This is to announce to you that the ArbCom has concluded the following... editing privileges remain revoked, and may apply to have them reinstated only after a couple of months by appeal to the Committee), a "good faith" mistake which nonetheless could not be discussed and explained on-wiki, like any other serious harassment matter. Your posts and emails suggested you were likely unaware of that and I have assumed good faith that you were not.
6. As said, and as further evidenced above, far from delaying, I approached the new Arbcom almost as soon as it existed to ask for "urgent advice today". The problems with making a statement where the evidence (arbcom emails, discussion of Damian, etc) could not be provided on-wiki on demand, or posting a topic that might have blown up into a debate on the entirety of the 2008 Arbcom in the middle of the very arbcom elections, seem obvious to me. Consultation was essential, and done almost the first day it was possible, as soon as the new committee existed.
7. Last, there was no way to look for any diffs and find them missing, without the oversight log. Perhaps some users memorize the edits they make. I've made 30k of them and I doubt I could tell you any of them. "My first edit" might be something of deep importance to some users; I haven't memorized them and were it not for explicitly being told where to look (oversight log, October) I would not be able to verify the presence or absence of almost any edit out of my 30 K alleged to be missing. You also forget that the person who made those claims fabricated a wide range of other claims which were fantastical in style. I had no way to check if this was one more, in July, and said so. I noted despite this, the need to check anyway, and did in fact check the very first day I heard it was possible again. But at July 4 I had (in memory terms) the statement that "some edits were oversighted" and a question whether I could confirm or deny. The answer accurately was, no, I could not confirm or deny, but I would do so when the log came back. Which without asking I did. As witness that 3 months later I did so (October 9-10), and that this was done way before anyone asked it or nagged. That's not the act of someone deliberately delaying anything, Thatcher.

I hope you see why I say, you were grievously wrong in your handling here. Almost everything you have claimed is inaccurate not just based on "say-so", but based on hard solid evidence. But I could not make that strength of statement without the most careful checking. Hence the 105 K documentation of emails, timelines and other evidence, to ensure accuracy in the matter. The community might forgive a slip made the day after a death about an email 7 months previous. It was not my intention to make any mistake in solidly re-checking and documenting the matter. That and good counsel how to proceed with this disclosure, was something I requested as soon as possible. This was not your judgement to make; you were being repeatedly told by Arbitrators that it was being active discussed and knew that to be the case. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

After FT2's response

You write above, "But at July 4 I had (in memory terms) the statement that 'some edits were oversighted' and a question whether I could confirm or deny. The answer accurately was, no, I could not confirm or deny, but I would do so when the log came back."

You did not simply say on July 4 that you could not confirm or deny. You said that was the first you had heard of it. And that was false. Please focus on that issue, and that you misled us all about it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See above and look at it with commonsense: In between a death and a funeral, a user posts me a comment "[T]hanks...! While you are here can you either confirm or deny that a few of your edits... were oversighted? Can you recollect the rationale for the actions?" I try to be helpful and not minimal in providing information (as witness Archtransit, Checkuser stats and many other matters). I could have said "no" alone. But that's not my way. I try to be as helpful as I can. In that circumstance, I added that this was the first I'd heard of it, because as best I knew at that time, it was an honest statement to say so. I added that I would try to verify it, if it was in the duration of the oversight log, and in fact I did check it -- and emailed David Gerard to ask for details and got answers. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I just looked to see when the oversighted edits were first mentioned on Wikipedia Review. The first discussion I see there about it was on December 21, 2007. Are you seriously suggesting that you didn't look at any of those threads before July 2008, and that no one e-mailed you to alert you to them? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I knew Damian was stirring up generic drama on WR. I shrugged, left him to it, didn't pay much attention, and got on with enwiki Arbcom matters. No interest in following drama. Put this way, I also had no idea what was going on on Meta, and Meta is a lot closer to enwiki that WR. Or again, I haven't a clue right now what WR made of Damian's appeal, of your RFAR, or what it makes of this issue either. I'm based on enwiki and rarely go offsite. I created an account at WR in August/September 2008, though I had emailed their site owner briefly in April to inquire. So no, I had zero knowledge and/or memory of the "oversighted edits" threads at WR at July 4. Sorry, dead end there too. I just wasn't "plugged in" to WR. One user asked me about it by email which I believe must have been based on a WR thread but they seemed to be asking if I had oversighted some of my own edits which of course I hadn't, and they finally commented they had probably made a mistake. I found that while researching my Arbcom evidence, and I disclosed it, as I am doing here.

So no, while some here read WR, that's their choice. I'm based on the wiki. A few vague mentions that a past banned harasser was rumored to be off making drama elsewhere does not amount to "ability to confirm or deny" or any kind of knowledge, and I was not tracking Damian either or visiting sites where he hung out. On July 4 when I posted, it was an honest comment as best I knew. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The denials are reaching the point of being scary, quite frankly. You didn't ask David to oversight the edits. He didn't ask you if you minded if they were oversighted (so someone's going around oversighting non-libelous, non-identifying, non-copyright edits without anyone's consent or knowledge?). He didn't even tell you he had done it afterwards. You didn't notice that Wikipedia Review was discussing it. No one alerted you to it. You read Jimbo's December 2007 e-mail but you promptly forgot about it. You didn't read the ArbCom mailing list e-mails of April and May 2008. When people started asking onwiki in July, you didn't realize the importance of being accurate in your responses. You continued posting falsehoods, not realizing they were false until December 2008. Even then, you wouldn't make a statement onwiki, claiming you needed permission from X, Y, and Z, even though it was only your knowledge — only yours — that was being asked about.

Can you see why people might find the above disturbing? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see why some people who see conspiracies or worry about bad faith might. I'm not answerable for any other person, and if you ask David Gerard he'll affirm he told Jimbo, but not me. The non-reading of Damian's emails is a matter of integrity; I'd be disturbed by any arb who would not take that very seriously. The inquiry in july came between a death and a funeral and the evidence of integrity is clear from the actions taken to research and disclose everything, even if nobody else would ever have known it. And the privacy matters are documented at Arbcom. Sure I can see how someone who wants to interpret things their way, could do so. Why on earth do you think I wanted to consult (and took steps as soon as possible to consult) about the best way to do an urgent disclosure properly? That's exactly what Arbcom is for -- to review difficult divisive issues based on diffs, quoted emails, and other hard evidence; to advise or consider editors who wish to disclose privacy based material in a dispute or other matter; and to verify to the community what's a fair perception if there are privacy issues. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Further

Forget the specifics being debated above for a moment FT2, though I'm sure someone will bring us back to that. Would you admit that you perhaps did not handle this situation as well as you could have? Because I don't see anything like that in your statements above and I think that is telling and will be to others as well. It's pretty obvious you could have dealt with this far more effectively than you did, but I'm not sure you recognize that.

Second, would you admit that you have lost the confidence of a significant percentage of Wikipedians who are aware of this situation? Because that seems pretty clear from numerous comments in multiple parts of the pedia. As an admin I know that if that much of the community was unhappy with my performance I would resign without even thinking about it (it's why I'm up for admin recall). Whether it was fair or not or what the exact rationale was would be irrelevant - if folks thought I was doing my job poorly I could not be a good admin after that and would thus resign the bit. I think it's pretty impossible for you to be a good Arbitrator at this point no matter where this ends up, and it might be good to start admitting that to yourself rather than working up another 105k answer to whatever comes next.

Obviously you care about this project, and obviously you know that being an Arb is no big deal in the scope of Wikipedia or life. This thing is either going to end messy and take up a lot of time and get a lot more people mad, or it can largely end now (less messy) if you step down, which is really the action you ought to take. Even if you think it's unfair, it's the right thing to do right now. You don't know me from Adam and I've only been aware of this controversy for a few hours since I don't contribute here as much at the moment, but I think I'm giving you good advice. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You're mistaken about recognizing you :) I've seen your name at least once, though I can't remember what on. Good memories though.

What I find a concern is the number of people willing to judge despite knowing they don't know the case. I have given good faith on many occasions to users, and within reason, would expect it given too. So you may be right, but let's test it. Your contention is that I didn't handle it as well as I might. Here is some data (recapped from above):-

• First awareness of an actual mis-statement needing handling, Dec 9. Handling - disclosed to Jimbo, Dec 9.
• Disclosure to community held back due to 1/ concerns that I might be asked a privacy matter which could not be evidenced, 2/ ongoing arbcom election, 3/ lack of functional arbcom to disclose to and seek counsel from. Handling - disclosed to new arbcom almost immediately it formed (4 days after appointment) and "urgent advice" sought on disclosure, request whether self-RFAR would be accepted, etc.
• Promises made to disclose communally. handling - keeping those promised "in the loop" without being asked to do so (for example without reminding posted to SlimVirgin's talk page to affirm it wasn't forgotten [17][18], noted that various arbitrators had said to them as well that it was being dealt with, etc)
• Disclosure to Arbcom made in full and thoroughly to allow review of the topic.

If you can specify one unreasonable or inappropriate "handling" action on this, please let me know, and discuss, and that's fine. But a generic claim that it was mishandled with no indication where or how... I take your point, but do you take mine, that that's not something I'd ask of anyone. More generally, I would like to be assessed on actual actions, not on assumptions of bad faith or lack of knowledge (not you but generally). That goes for the entire of the past year. It's not an unreasonable expectation.

The other issue is this. Given that the majority of assumption here is badly misinformed (Thatcher is closer to the matter than almost any non-arb, and even his statement is riddled with hard-evidenced errors of assumption and fact), and given also, that the reality is that my work has been of a high quality and benefited the community very well (I am willing to evidence that if asked: what I've achieved for the community on Arbcom and how I've conducted the role).... does it serve the community better to 1/ remove a beneficial, seasoned, acts-with-integrity, productive user based on visible misassumptions and hearsay that isn't well backed up, or does it serve the community better to 2/ find some way to get at the truth of it and get genuine information as to what to believe and what not about this all?

I would step down temporarily while the latter is taking place, but I would do so in the confidence that my actions both seen and unseen throughout last year, will be found to be of the highest standard by a reasonable and experienced review. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, as to the poor handling of the situation I think the issue for most is the apparent foot-dragging and opacity. That's just a perception that people have and which you contest, but it is not, I think you would admit, a wholly illegitimate perception. None of your bullets above convince me that this situation required five weeks (or more) for a resolution. The obvious read on this (which many are making) is that what seems a relatively simple and straightforward issue is now somehow incredibly and unnecessarily complicated. There is a strong feeling out there that you are obfuscating, and even if you dispute that as you clearly do it does not mean you are not in part to blame for the perception that some foot-dragging and obfuscation is going on. I think you would admit that this whole situation is WP:NOTATALLGOOD, and either that is wholly other people's fault or you deserve at least some share of the blame. I had the impression that you thought the former which is why I originally asked "Would you admit that you perhaps did not handle this situation as well as you could have?" Your answer seems to be "no" - which again I find telling - but correct me if I'm wrong.

I like what you say in your last paragraph and think that is an excellent way forward. Why don't you invoke the equivalent of section 3 of the 25th Amendment for the time being (except instead of a VP we get a temporarily empty Arb Seat)? If you have confidence that your "actions both seen and unseen throughout last year, will be found to be of the highest standard by a reasonable and experienced review" then step down from ArbCom until such a review is completed. I think this would create needed goodwill within the community whose members would then be more likely to re-examine the facts. Once that's concluded, gauge the temperature of the community through a simple thumbs up or thumbs down RFC or something similar. Say at the outset that you would be bound by whatever the community wanted you to do in terms of your appointment to ArbCom. The specifics of that temperature taking would not really matter and could even be at your discretion, so long as they were clear from the outset. Would you be game for something along those lines?

You mention "the truth of it" and "genuine information" but of course those kind of things are often in the eye of the beholder, so even if you are sure you did nothing wrong here others might not (and some absolutely will not) see it that way. There is a risk in putting this back in the hands of the community as I suggest in that they may judge you unfairly, but I don't see any other credible way for you to deal with this at this point. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well could somebody explain precisely why this is considered by some people to be a resignation issue? It seems that FT2 misled some people over a private matter. Good for him, he's entitled to privacy. This badgering is unseemly and seems to be bringing the worst out in some Wikipedians. --TS 11:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Before reading this thread, I had no idea 3 weeks was such a long time. Avruch ^T 13:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, Jimbo, FloNight and David Gerard all advised FT2 to make the corrections a couple weeks earlier, so its closer to 5. It was more than 4 weeks before he was even ready with his draft explanation to Arbcom. Regardless, how long should it take for FT2 to say, "whoops, I goofed, here is the correct timeline"? Do you accept FT2's explanation that he could not offer any public statement until after he presented a full explanation to arbcom and they had a chance to comment? Thatcher 13:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think it is how I would've handled it, but it is characteristic of how FT2 approaches things. Best example is the Poetlister investigation - the statement was extraordinarily complete and detailed, reflecting FT2s desire to touch on every pertinent detail to the greatest extent possible. I can see why he would want to have (new) ArbCom fully in the loop on everything, and give them a short period of time to settle in, before contributing to the inevitable drama explosion. He obviously likes to cover every base - I don't think that is really necessary in every situation, but I also don't think a less than fully complete statement (or really, any statement at all) would have satisfied his critics if it had come two or three or five weeks ago. The simple fact is that people are upset with him for a variety of reasons and no explanation he could have given that didn't end with "I resign" would have made people happy no matter when it arrived. Avruch ^T 16:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo and David Gerard agreed with my view that I should disclose fully, but they don't handle privacy issues on the wiki, nor would issues bounce back to them as Arbcom. "Be open" is an utter agreement with my own view (which is what I asked on Dec 9). The follow-up question, how that openness should be done in such circumstances, was a matter for the multiple voices at Arbcom. Which was done almost immediately the new committee was appointed (Dec 20). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Tony, for asking this question again; could somebody explain precisely why this is considered by some people to be a resignation issue.

The answer is that this is a project with anonymous editors, so all we have to judge candidates on is thier contribution history. FT2's was falsified to remove embarrassing edits to help his election. That's why he should resign from the arbcom and set down all his flags. David Gerard should set down his flags too. I realize other people have different reasons they think FT2 should step down, like he's a liar and writes outrageous idiotic things like this (you can see my earlier comment here). Nevertheless, whatever reasons people think he should resign over, the community solidly agrees. Again, thankyou Tony. --Duk 16:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Duk, this might be pointless given your strong view, but let's try giving you some indications:

1. Oversighting - The oversight is very well evidenced as being nothing to do with "helping" or otherwise the election. The actual grounds (judged positively or harshly as may be) are hard evidenced to Arbcom, and related exclusively to serious off-site defamation. Like all harassment/defamation matters the details Arbcom has aren't public.
2. Thatcher has stated to Arbcom (Jan 6, prior to all this) that even Damian accepts the edits were unlikely to have changed the election.
3. Giano, who is remaining curiously quiet when asked his own view on the edits, has stated that his view on the oversighted edits was that they were "factual" if on a "distasteful" subject and roughly speaking, not very important. While I cannot quote his email publicly I hope he will choose to do so. I believe you trust Giano's opinion. It may help if you doubt others.

   Proviso noted - provided they were in fact cited, which within bounds of a complete new-comer editor in the 2004 era, and before cite.php existed (<ref>..</ref>, introduced much later), they were deemed to be.

4. Election impact - It also wasn't a problem from an election stance. The community had visibly and previous to this indicated that broadly, it rejected the entire concerns. When the issue was forced anyway, I was seeing "rejection of smear campaign" posts, like these: [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26].

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If, as you say, the community recognized a smear campaign for what it was, and that these edits wouldn't have affected the election, then why were they oversighted? Why engage in this enormous conflict of interest and election tampering?

If the 'blog trolling' is what you say it is, don't you think the community is smart enough to recognize it for themselves? Oversighting these edits takes that ability away from the community. Do you and David have so little confidence in the community that you have to hide information in fear that we'll come to the wrong conclusions based on it? Do you really think we are that stupid? If not, then why the oversight?

This tinkering with oversight tools among the elite to help eachother - in this case during an election - can't be aloud to stand. It's an abomination. (perhaps there is a better word to use here than elite) The community has to judge candidates based on their contributions, at least in the case of anonymous candidates. If that contribution record is tinkered with then how can the community have any confidence in their choices?

Truly, this oversighting is an intolerable abuse of power. I don't know if you asked for it to be done and I really don't care. I just know that you didn't win a fair election.

--Duk 18:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue here was defamation. Because of that, some of your questions might answer themselves. For example, what the community thought wasn't at issue because the issue wasn't really the community but the real world.

Arbcom has the details. This is part why I wanted their advice, because such things are arbcom handled, and people will hope for answers. That's why I wanted advice what was best, because it's such a difficult problem to know what and how to disclose, when (unknown to the community) you're being asked to publicize details that are actually related to your own defamation and open ended questions might be likely as well. Nobody should be obligated to do that and Arbcom, WMF or some other serious advice is normal if there could be such an issue, because as a norm all defamation/harassment are handled by email. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been asked to do that several times, unfortunately, including by members of the ArbCom. But that aside, that wasn't really the issue. You were simply being asked when you first learned of the oversighting. You weren't being asked about the contents (which were not defamatory), much less about the use to which the contents were put (which might have been, I don't know). SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(Will comment when back. Basically the explanation, or follow-on questions, were likely to touch on privacy/harassment areas. Arbcom's got that information though and its evidence.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(Back now) Basically as you can now appreciate, it was not a case of "one specific date". I first heard (whether remembered or not) in December 2007 mid election and skimmed and forgot. You may litigate for less than perfect memory, if you wish. Between then and end June 2008, I was focused on avoiding all Damian matters or hearing or knowing of them whether on-wiki or any other venue, to the extent of multiple emails to Arbcom and email filtering. I heard or registered none, and probably read none. So July 4 was an honest answer. Whether because of these reasons, or because I was kinda busy with death, upset kids, and other minor offline matters, as well as OM and a busted computer, I can't say. The statement was honest when made. Since all these points would need evidencing, I consulted with Arbcom before disclosure and I spent time ensuring it was full thorough disclosure. Just as well too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The answer to a defamation problem is to oversight some of your edits? Sorry FT2, that doesn't compute. It might make sense if the claim was true instead of defamation, but at this point it doesnt really matter. It's the coverup, corrupt oversight abuse and delay tactics that are important now, at least in my mind. --Duk 19:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As said, I hit a wall here because that's gone to Arbcom and not to you. Now... given that this relates to serious, real-life, defamation (which I agree you have to take my word on right now), then I think your concern over "coverup" or "corrupt" would pretty much fall apart.

What should have happened was simply, extreme tool used not middle tool, WMF sysadmins unoversight it. I think we can all agree on that. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• FT2, I am trying to remain civil, but it is becoming more and more obvious that your whole election to Arbcom was, to put it mildly, dodgy. FGS resign and let this matter be investigated properly. Giano (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of IRC chat

Thatcher now says you discussed the oversighting on April 24, 2008 on IRC, with him and FloNight. That was three months before you say you first heard about it. [27] Do you have anything to say about that? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If that's true I certainly hope FT2 has something to say about it. "I forgot about that too" probably is not going to cut it at this point.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

David Gerard has also confirmed that he did tell FT2 about the oversighting: "I let FT2 know I'd zapped the edit..." [28] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite right too! Is there something wrong with telling somebody you just zapped an edit that was being used for the purpose of trolling? Is there anything wrong with being told? If as I suspect your answer to both is "none at all", then what is the problem? --TS 21:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the telling of course, nor with the deleting of the edit though the oversight was not the way to go as Gerard freely admits. You're missing the point here Tony. FT2 has claimed he had no idea this had happened until very recently, and now we are hearing he was told about it right after it happened and had an IRC chat about it months later, in addition to the e-mail from Jimbo mentioned earlier which FT2 says he forgot about. That is what is primarily at issue at this point.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• As of July 4, when FT2 said that it was the first time he heard of an oversight matter in connection with Peter Damian's ban, he had been previously exposed to the following,

1. An email from Jimbo dated Dec 11 2007 acknowledging the oversight (which he says was "passing and trivial" so he forgot about it)
2. A similar email from David Gerard also contemporaneous to the oversights (also forgotten?),
3. A email to Arbcom from Peter Damian of April 22 (which he says he did not read)
4. An IRC chat on April 24 (forgot that one too I guess)
5. And emails from myself and FloNight to Arbcom on or about May 1-2 (which he says he did not read).

• Furthermore, the justification for not reading the Arbcom emails is that he was keeping away from the Arbcom side of the issue since he was a party to the dispute. But he had no problem chatting with me and Flo about it in IRC on April 24 and May 2, and calling me on December 4, so the claim that he was keeping thing separate is a bit strained at least. Goes to the question of credibility.Thatcher 22:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And a response

SlimVirgin asks what I have to say about that. What I have to say is: thank God I ignored everyone who said "don't write a 105 K full set of evidence", or who was arguing that thoroughness had to mean evasion.

Because.... guess just what would have happened if I'd done as some wished, or followed Thatcher's throwaway line that it could all be covered "in 3 sentences". I said that I wanted to do it once, thoroughly, and not have to revisit the statements and cites. I'm frankly now darn glad I did so since I can now say, in fact this log went to Arbcom too, and it shows... nothing.

When I said I wanted to be thorough and not leave any omissions, I meant it. I searched every IRC log, and every email within reason that I could find, to be sure this time it was as close to comprehensively written up as I could accomplish. Yes it took time. It took wordage. You're an admin (albeit temp desysopped) and you're used to RFAR evidence. You've seen me present case evidence. Did you think I'd be any less thorough here than for other cases? That is why Thatcher's "Aha!" flops so badly. I do not know why he held it back till now. As a crude trap, to "find" something I had kept hidden? Or because he himself or FloNight only just found it (AGF)? If the former, it failed. I had disclosed it to Arbcom and presented the full, unedited log for review. It occupies from 83 K in, to 96 K in, of the 105 K total, and appears under the heading "the prior chat on IRC (FloNight and Thatcher, April 23)".

What did it show?

The log is a discussion of Damian's likely appeal. It primarily shows me arguing with Thatcher and FloNight that Damian's appeal had to be public, transparent, and on-wiki, to be fair to the community and him, and put an end to the drama. Samples to judge what I say in private to a fellow Arbitrator... and this is discussing a user who's harassed and smeared me. Since the log was about a possible unban, let's look at my part of the dialog, which was its main part. Read carefully and judge.

<FT2> if its in private <FT2> suspicion lingers "what if he's right" <FT2> if he's turned down it'll be seen as "well he's a member of AC, what did you expect" <FT2> if theres evidence for discussion it won't be seen except by those who already know it <FT2> I really want this one open on the wiki

<FT2> [...] mostly its the "nothing to hide". A private hearing will never clear any of this up, and when an arb is involved public eyeballs are a way to show "nothing to hide, clean case" ... <FT2> but hiding it... <FT2> how will that resolve anything?

<FT2> [...] if he will genuinely follow through and make good on them - apologize, name who he contacted, and drop it <FT2> there isnt a reason not to unblock

<FT2> he wants back <FT2> and he's likely to promise to behave if given it <FT2> he wanted back many times <FT2> all he's done has been when thwarted ... <FT2> the big difference is, if he's not convinced then in public others will be, in private they'll assume AC conspiracy and circling of wagons <FT2> AC doesnt need that, not on a case like this where the evidence is perfectly fine

<FT2> Im not sure what my main motive is. maybe its as simple as "I dont like even the slightest appearance of anything untoward" <FT2> and so a case where an arb is involved or may be perceived to be closely involved should usually be more public <FT2> if its someone else so be it <FT2> when its me I try to apply tighter norms than usual ... <FT2> I just feel if its in private, it'll be like the runcorn/poetlister thing again, whereas in public it'll be like archtransit <FT2> perennial underground "was it/wasnt it AC bias" <FT2> vs "evidence obvious, nothing to see here"

<FT2> his main contention is an arbcom member has acted wrongly somehow, or something, and that makes the case non-standard for transparency

Is that what the ideal Arbitrator would be saying in private on IRC? That is me, speaking in private, on IRC, about a person who has done harm.

In the log, Damain's campaign is discussed in general terms. I repeat roughly what was said, and this is not my words but the words of Flonight or Thatcher, or the one speaking and the other tacitly or explicitly agreeing:

• Damian's campaign is referred to. It shows clear consensus (with which I agree) that nobody credible takes any of it as more than a momentary reference to a banned user's latest fantasy, one of many.
• Thatcher mentions "the edits" (no detail) that were oversighted, in the context of being yet another fabrication (link). He never says much more, the nature of "the edits" is not discussed nor their mythological status questioned. Both make clear by their conduct, they hold this belief.
• To underline this, the point is then made that whatever is said, it would be claimed evidence was removed; if not in the oversight log then clearly a developer deleted it, or it has been faked.
• The dialog then moves on back to handling of the appeal and my actual concerns, the neutrality of Damian's appeal.

So an accurate statement would be, Damian had mentioned oversighted edits to others (unknown to me). Thatcher or FloNight heard of this rumor. When I asked about appeal handling, there were a couple of brief mentions of general words like "the edits" or "oversighting" in passing in this log, as examples of Damian's general tendency to fabricate. The log was 2.5 months before July, and Thatcher interjects "were edits oversighted" into Damian's ban discussion then indicates that Damian is (in his view) willing to fabricate anything, before lapsing. Thatcher does not give data or details, does not indicate knowledge, does not indicate this is in any way anything to do with anything I know of, just asks out of the blue those words before he and FloNight sidetrack into how Damian should be denied platform for his rantings. Shortly after the dialog gets back to what it was actually requested to discuss -- namely my concerns that Damian's appeal would be fairly handled.

I don't track Damian's doings (on or off wiki). The lasting memory of this dialog was the very real concern that two very experienced Wikipedians had just told me that they plan for a user to get less than what I consider the most ideal hearing... because of their wish to "control" the matter. No matter if this is a user who has tried to attack and harm me, who has sought to defame me, who has strange beliefs about me. I'm acting as an Arbitrator, and whether friend, enemy or stranger, over my dead body he gets less than the fairest hearing. That is not to say he will have an "easy ride". A fair hearing would also involve fair presentation of evidence against, and fair unban conditions as the committee decided. But the hearing itself must be fair.

This is a good example of why case evidence is 105 K long. It is why the disclosure is important. Because I did find a couple of passing snuck-in mentions, but they were never of such stature to be notable, except by someone poring through every line trying to find fault, going "Someone used words "the edits" or whatever in a single chat 3 months before so you must have KNOWN!!!"

So to respond to the items above, most of which are rehashes as if repetition changes facts:

• Dec 11 2007 -- mid election, explanation fully given
• April 24-26 -- Explained. To recap: sole topic of all chats and emails at this time was purely Damian's imminent unban. The chat Thatcher cites in fact said nothing of any oversighting, except that Thatcher merely used the word. It did not confirm or deny; no memorable action took place. It did not indicate it was a question needing answer (as Thatcher/FloNight answered it themselves by commenting it was fantasy anyhow or changing topic almost immediately). The log closed when IRC closed and sat on a hard disk. Thatcher mentioned the words (but no detail) only to immediately dismiss it as unimportant and delusional, them moved on back to the main topic, the ban appeal. namely Thatcher and FloNight's view that it could not be allowed to have a public case as both Damian and I had wanted, and my strong objections to this.
• April 24 to some unknown time long after -- fully ignored all emails, most references to him, 3 emails to Arbcom saying so.
• And last, regarding Dec 4 2008, you really do in this post, try to rake the bottom of this barrel. Obviously once you unbanned a confirmed harasser and evader (or let him believe/game that he is unbanned), against all site norms and an explicit Arbcom decision, with no consensus or discussion whatsoever, and in a manner you yourself agreed was probably a very poor call, then contact to ask you to remit it to Arbcom (its agreed venue) was going to happen. Any party in that position might well have done the same. You weren't online, we'd spoken by phone. QED. You goofed, and you have acknowledged you goofed.

To present any of this as meaning any kind of "knowledge" does not indicate wrongdoing. You have consistently assumed bad faith, assumed wherever possible a negative interpretation ("help" must mean "asked for this kind of help" being one example), got emotional and upset on a few things a while back, forum shopped rather than trust arbitrators who said it was in hand, tried to drag up old well-explained grounds yet again, and possibly as a result over-reached. You don't do it often, but here you have been. Please pause and if you need to discuss it, you know where my email is.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

25th Amendment, section three, Wikipedia style. I'm quite serious about that as I suggested above. I again reference a section of the U.S. constitution though I hate to come off as an overly provincial American—as is all too often our wont—but I continue to think that is the way to go here. Fair or not you've lost trust with too much of the community and the best thing for you to do right now is to (temporarily at least) abdicate your position as Arb and then work to win back that trust. I sincerely believe such an action will go a long way with many, certainly including myself. The more I hear the specifics of this case the more I feel the original situation contains much more smoke than fire. But the one thing you cannot do now right now is circle your rather prolixly constructed evidential wagons and ignore the fact that a lot of folks here don't respect your authority at the moment. Instead, acknowledge that fact, step down temporarily, and hope that the truth and the common sense of the en.wikipedia will out in the end. The beauty of section three of the 25th Amendment is that the President simply informs congress that she or he is able to discharge the duties of the office and then returns to duty. You'll do much better work as an Arb for the next two years if you step down for the time being, successfully regain the community's trust, and then get back to your work.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Good grief.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatcher (talk • contribs) 14:09, January 15, 2009 (UTC)

• You knew Peter Damian was complaining about oversight. You were of the opinion that it was no big deal. I agree that David's goof was no big deal, but for the fact that it gave Damian an anchor for his other complaints. But you knew. Thatcher 14:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If someone had asked "have you seen Damian complaining about oversight" it might have triggered memories. A rushed comment at a rough time asking can I confirm or deny whether edits were oversighted - no. The rest was pretty much automatic "try to help", secondary stuff added on to be helpful. It was inaccurate, but at the time I wrote, it was my honest thought. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

We're past the point where this sort of thing is useful. FT2 has resigned; in the unlikely event that he makes his way back onto the Arbitration Committee, it will only be through the conclusion of some sort of independent investigation. Unless folks are seeking his resignation from other positions (which they may be, I suppose) discussing this further serves no purpose other than to prolong the painful drama. Avruch ^T 16:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you're going to post that, Thatcher, gods' sake post it honestly, including the rather crucial context before it. Because again the full context shows that snip is rather misleading. Here's what it actually looks like with a bit of context:

<FT2-away> but hiding it [i.e., hearing Damian's unban appeal in private]... <FT2-away> how will that resolve anything? <thatcher-wiki> you believe that by arguing rationally with an irrational person, you can convince him he is irrational? <FloNight> We're not hiding it. <FloNight> We're ignoring it. <FloNight> Folks like him want a platform <thatcher-wiki> if his argument is you made naughty edits, then no matter what the article content is, he will claim it is oversighted <thatcher-wiki> if you grant him oversight access and the edits aren't there, he'll just say a dev removed them <thatcher-wiki> unless you're prepared to admit to making some naughty edits and unfairly blocking him for trying to point out THE TRUTH, I don't see any other winning strategy <FT2-away> Ive never made any edit I couldnt stand by <FT2-away> so thats easy <FT2-away> unfortunately the oversight log is down -- I ironically checked with brion 3 days ago why, because of another oversight query

Just look, will you? That discussion wasn't at all about "the oversighted edits". It's not even referring to them. It's discussing Thatcher's concern that Damian might make a spurious claim and my comment that if he did, we couldn't disprove it because the log's down.

For completeness, I note the overall dialog: it's preceded by 30 lines about Damian's appeal, an interjected 3 word question that gets ignored by everyone completely and never followed up, 30 more lines about the ban, and the risk of him using a ban as a platform to make conspiracy claims etc ("we don't have time for a show case" - FloNight), a statement that he could potentially make a spurious claim that edits were oversighted, 14 lines of chat, and the above. There are no other mentions, nothing relevant after, and this chat does not mention anything whatsoever that might count as "having heard" anything.

To coin a term, epic terminal crunch, Thatcher. This is really getting pointless. You're dragging up less and less valid material each time the last while. There was a point you had a valid concern, but you're way past that now. Look at yourself. You're just trying to somehow, find something to hook onto more than one passing email mid election that I myself disclosed. Drop the stick and do not re-approach the horse. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello World

(I've moved this answer to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/FT2#Hello_World_from_David_Gerard - David Gerard (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC

As we seem to be making little progress with discussions on multiple pages, I've filed an RfC. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FT2. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't let them get you down.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Emails

You have my full permission to pass any emails that have taken place between us to David Gerard who wishes to publish them, complete with their identifying headers [29]- which he is gratuitiously delighting in. I understand you have already divulged their contents, I look forward to seeing if they still tally with my records. Please publish them ASAP. Giano (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It will (it's just the one). Would you like it by email or here? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• FT2, if you have, as Gerard has said, an email from me in which I say the link between the oversighting of those edits and your continuation as an Arb is fine, then please publish it or to be more precise [30] "I understand Giano previously emailed FT2 about this exact matter and was satisfied at the time." Regarding those edits: you ask me higher up on this page "What was your opinion of it (as content I mean, assuming you've seen the edit)? " Well, I will answer you now - the content was, in my view, repulsive. However, if that content was true and factual (I have no idea) then it has a place on Wikipedia - distasteful as the subject is too many people. I will go one step further, I have frequently said this privately to others, so now I will say it here - taking an interest in a subject does not mean one embraces it - I have written in great detail about Gothic architecture - I loathe it. I am in favour of Wikipedia covering any subject so long as that coverage is lawful, educated, factual, referencred and without POV, even if the subject is not lawful. Your wiki-crime was not editing that page, it was all that ensued during an election campaign. That Gerard can take it upon himself to oversight facts from Wikipedia, is something I find extraordinary - I hope you are not left to carry this bucket alone. The simple fact of the matter is you have been embroiled in what appears to be a web of deceit - that is not acceptable for an Arb, even now I don't think you understand that. I will now leave you to edit in peace, I have only posted her to reply to your question above; I do sincerely hope you will now be able to find some relaxation on the project and feel able to continue your mainspace work in whatever areas you chose. Giano (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm indifferent to "like or loathe" on a topic when I edit. The sole point I wanted made was that the content of the edit itself had been reviewed by someone completely unconnected, widely well regarded, and broadly hostile or opposed (if the term might be used) in this matter, and they too had concluded that (subject to factuality and the like) the edits as content were not especially remarkable, even if the subject matter is widely regarded as unpleasant. It was a contention that they were removed because they were somehow unusual or the like. Since that seems to be uncontended I don't need to quote anything publicly. if you want a copy for your records you're welcome, or you may ask any arb to email you what I posted to Arbcom so you may verify its accuracy independently. Or, indeed, you may consider this side-issue closed :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Best wishes

• Offered without further comment on the particulars of this matter, but with thanks for your service to the projects: My best wishes to you, FT2, where ever your road may take you next. ++Lar: t/c 14:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Seconded. Thanks for your service in a thankless job.--Tznkai (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles

There is a tremendously interesting article that needs to be written, Solar storm of 1859. You might also like SS Edmund Fitzgerald, a famous ship that was apparently sunk by a rogue wave. Jehochman ^Talk 16:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)