Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Comments on view by Ryan Postlethwaite

• I'm not endorsing this summary, but I want to make a point of order, Ryan. Your comment "For the past few months we've seen the usual suspects pop up to make snide remarks towards FT2 to carry on their tirade against the Arbitration Committee". You are a clerk for ArbCom. This coveted position requires that you have "more caution than typically encouraged on Wikipedia". I believe that you should consider your position, and the imperative to be a neutral operative for ArbCom, before voicing your own opinion on such matters—whether in support of ArbCom, individual arbitrators, or any other related matter. Your position requires you to be seen as NPOV, even though there are provisions for recusal. It would be preferable if an Arbitrator themselves expressed their opinions, rather than your taking on that role as an impartial "civil servant", as it were. Tony (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm saying this as a normal editor, not as an arbitration clerk or administrator. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I'm merely voicing mine on something that's a user conduct issue. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I noted that discrepancy in the rules on the Clerks' page! (IMO, it should be modified.) All the same, I think your language might have been more measured, given the position of trust you occupy. Tony (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  He's a clerk - he doesn't make any rulings, or have any impact on the outcome of an arbitration case. Avruch ^T 13:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think your comments in the latter half of this outside view are inflammatory and unhelpful. With the comments you made, you cast aspersions on all who have dared question FT2'sd behavior across many issues. This is incredibly unfair. SDJ 15:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if this was the effect; it was not intended that way. I also have nothing against Ryan. Perhaps I'm just old-fashioned and conservative about the need to protect oneself against CoI, and thus for those in official roles to be cautious. I meant no harm. Tony (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I think SD was referring to Ryan's comments and not your own. Avruch ^T 16:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Sorry for the confusion, Tony. SDJ 17:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, people who have legitimate concerns have raised them in a collegial manner, a few users have used this however to bully FT2 and simply troll - if my language appears inflammatory it's because they deserve it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments in your initial post drew no distinctions between the groups you now delineate. That's why I consider them inflammatory and unhelpful. Lumping all of us who have attempted to see FT2 removed from the Arbcom together as you did is patently unfair. SDJ 17:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You belong squarely to the bully group. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You rarely understand any issue you comment upon, so why should this one be any different. I've yet to see you make a helpful addition to a discussion, and this addition did not change that track record. What were you trying to accomplish here, other than trolling for an argument? SDJ 19:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SD, I think your talking about someone else. I for one often appreciate Apoc's comments and think they're insightful. But on these matters we will have to agree to disagree.:) Sticky Parkin 19:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it depends upon what you mean by "insightful." I fail to see how calling me a bully is insightful in any way, or in any way actually reflects my conduct here. And I've seen him make similarly unconstructive additions to other discussions in which I've been involved. Care to explain where his comment above fits into your claim of his wonderful insights? SDJ 19:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• re:" The orangemarlin incident was unfortunate, but that was put down to a breakdown in communication from the whole committee, rather than an error of judgement by FT2" I don't know if this is commonly known or not, but when I inquired FT2 told me that he drafted the entire OM case. Knowing that he put it all together, I cannot agree that FT2 is free of errors in judgement in that incident even though misccommunication may have made things more dramatic than they would have been otherwise.--BirgitteSB 16:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on view by TS

• To Doc: I really wish you guys would cut this kind of thing out. It's really not helpful for you to broad brush those of us who think FT2 is unfit for the committee. Check my contributions. Wannabekate me. I think it would be a hard assertion to support that I'm "more interested in wikipolitics than anything else." And telling those who happen to disagree with you to "get a grip" is particularly unhelpful as well. How would you expect us to respond to that? "Oh, okay, Doc's told me to get a grip, so I guess I'll change my views on the matter"? There's a lot of attacking going on here, but most of it is aimed at those of us who happen to agree with the premise of this RfC. SDJ 18:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is handwaving nonsense. It's got a nice emotional appeal, but there's nothing of any substance in it. These kinds of responses are very predictable, but never helpful. There's an actual problem here that FT2 has repeatedly failed to solve. "Stop hounding" can in this case be directly translated to "let him continue doing his job incompetently". Sorry, but competence matters. Friday (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, my comment is a completely accurate statement of what has happened. It also reflects my opinion: that the baseless and shameful attacks must stop. If there are actual substantive issues of competence, they can be addressed outside this dog and pony show. --TS 17:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then, where ever those issues are being addressed, that venue will be derided as a "dog and pony show" also. Anyone who's been around a while has seen this strategy used many times before. It's still just handwaving nonsense. Friday (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of an RfC is not for its outside participants to argue, bicker and otherwise accuse each other. Its like kindergarten: use "I" statements. Tony has every right to his opinion as you do to yours - and attacking eachother's points of view is counter productive. --Tznkai (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course- everyone has an opinion. People are allowed to give them. Anyone who thinks a particular view is without merit is allowed to say that, too. I don't see a problem here. Friday (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its pretty counter-productive is the problem. Imagine this RfC with a "support" and "Oppose" section under each outside view. I can't see that going anywhere. You two disagree - and that is patently obvious from the two views put forward - no reason to argue about it, no one's mind is being changed.--Tznkai (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's an RfC, and it doesn't require that people not "comment" on the views of others. I was under the assumption that this talkpage was for exactly that purpose. SDJ 17:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. That said, my experience is that the most constructive way to respond to TS is simply to ignore him. I urge that method on others. DuncanHill (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This is sage counsel. I sometimes forget how constructive that approach is when dealing with Sidaway. SDJ 18:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Doc's comment that "I don't think FT2 has handled this wisely", I think that's one of those comments that I would file under the heading "all hindsight is 20-20." He has been evasive and prevaricated. On the other hand this is a completely private matter and should never have been raised in the first place. There is no suggestion that FT2 has done anything other than express a sensible and protective approach to his own private affairs, though there seem to be those who are determined to imply, by innuendo, that he has,or that it is wrong to be concerned about one's privacy. --TS 19:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Still a confusion about 'those who edit the Zoophilia article'. I have edited the pedophilia article. I intend to edit the zoophilia article. My original point was that the edits were grossly slanted and biased. That is a judgment about editorial content and nothing else (I can't even speculate on the motive for those edits). Edits that are a matter of content and judgment, containing no personal information, should not be oversighted because it doesn't suit a candidacy. End of story. Peter Damian (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  As far as I'm aware I didn't mention "those who edit" a particular article. I disagree strongly with the suggestion that emotive pleas are legitimate during an election campaign. Thou shalt not troll. This is part and parcel, in my view, of the kind of shit the committee finds itself knee deep in. Some heads need to be banged together. I suggest that we immediately start constructing a B Ark wiki for those Wikipedians who have become addicted to drama and politics, and have convinced themselves that a small, light committee composed of fallible individuals cannot resolve the few piddling problems our vast, unprecedentedly open self-governing online community throws their way. They're perfectly capable of doing the job if only you'll stop gnawing away at their ankles! --TS 00:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Considering you are a disgraced ex-admin who was forced to resign over gross misconduct and personal attacks. I find your credibility to be practically non-existent. I'll see you on the B Ark Tony. Dance With The Devil (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Any more fantasies you want to add, or is that your lot? --TS 09:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved by TS to this talk page 00:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC):[reply]

• Comment Thank you Tony for attempting to correct your commment, but it is now almost unreadable and incoherent. See my second comment on your talk page. But thank you for trying. Peter Damian (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on view by Sticky Parkin

Comments on view by Jehochman

Comments on view by Fritzpoll

• I think it is reasonable for FT2, and indeed any editor, to have the desire to defend themselves, protect their reputation, self image, and otherwise act like anyone else accused of being the "bad guy." We've certainly tolerated it from a lot of other people as a "natural response." Whether or not it is helpful is something else entirely. I further agree that the focus should be on the functioning of the Committee. Like it or not, ArbCom has become a major part of How Wikipedia Works, and the better ArbCom works the more disruptive disputes are isolated, quarantined, and (hopefully) solved - and the less ArbCom disrupts Wikipedia's main business of article building/maintenance in the process. I don't feel its appropriate at this juncture to state publicly how I feel further - I'm not convinced I should be writing this either, but I think my points could help the discussion move forward in a useful direction. Hope so anyway.--Tznkai (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on view by Avruch

Avruch, if you really think FT2 deserves an RfC on other grounds, perhaps you should request one. I can say this: I have been involved in a couple of major conflicts in which FT2 has stepped forward and involved himself, to some degree. I sometimes found his efforts clumsy, but they seemed earnestly well-intentioned; he never did anything that made me angry. I do not say this in order to make any kind of comment on the other cases you mention. I cannot nor do I wish to speak for any of the other editors you mention, maybe they do have grounds for requesting a comment, maybe they don't, if they haven't filed an RfC themselves, well, let's assume there is a good reason for that. But Wikipedia is so full of situations that prompt anger, I really would think twice about proposing an RfC based solely on things anyone has done made others angry. It is all too easy to take something personally; we should resist this whenever it is possible and the same goes for making things personal. In this case, SV has stuck closely to policy and some basic principles concerning ArbCom and ArbCom members. If people really find her grounds for request trivial or unsupported, they should say so, but I don't think anyone should encourage RfCs on other grounds (especially something vague like x has pissed many people off) unless (1) it is a conflict that has not been resolved through other means and (2) they think they have a strong case supported by policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could have mentioned other matters, such as the OrangeMarlin secret-trial case, which angered a lot of people, or FT2's attempt to become finance director of Wikimedia UK without telling people he was FT2, which similarly caused some anger. There are a number of other issues too. However, I felt that appearing to have deliberately misled the entire community about the oversighting, by claiming he didn't know about it, when all the evidence indicates that he did, was serious enough to warrant a request for his resignation, so I decided to focus on that issue alone. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the issue du jour, it isn't the reason that people are calling for FT2 to resign. It is that simple. I don't doubt that people who are inclined to distrust FT2 are suspicious of his explanations for the course of events around the oversighted edit. But it simply isn't credible for them to suggest that he should resign for this, and that they aren't motivated by any other history to ask for such a thing. In comparison to what his critics have previously accused him of, this is minor. So my suggestion is that they begin an RfC on what really bothers them. As to "sticks closely to policy" - I can't figure where you got that from. What policy applies? Avruch ^T 19:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite a sad day when people think that an arbitrator apparently having lied onwiki isn't a big enough deal for him to resign over. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You assume he's lying because you believe his explanation is implausible - i.e., he lied then because he's lying now about lying then. Before he explained, you assumed he was lying because... it was a conclusion that supported popular negative views of FT2. I have to say, SV, your role has certainly changed a great deal in the last six months or year or so. Far from being the chief detractor of Wikipedia Review, you've now expressed disbelief that a sitting arbitrator was unaware of something because it was discussed on WR. You've adopted a position chiefly promoted and developed at WR, based on evidence that no one in the community can verify. Should we all accept that FT2 lied, because you and Thatcher tell us its unlikely he didn't? Or should we give him the benefit of doubt because his explanation is plausible? Avruch ^T 20:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Avruch's position that this is the 'issue du jour'. I think the lack of trust that stems from this STILL ONGOING incident is in fact a big deal. Everything I know of users direct problems with FT2 stem from this incident. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on view by Friday

Comments on view by Giano

Comments on view by Scott MacDonald

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it sounds to me like it says "Yes, FT2 is an incompetent arbitrator. But, this doesn't matter very much, because other people have done bad things." If other people have done bad things, go ahead and troutslap them or whatever is appropriate. This doesn't mean an incompetent arbitrator who's lost the trust of the community shouldn't be ousted. Those are two separate issues. Mixing them together this way doesn't seem useful to me. Friday (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking me to ignore the elephant in the room. FT2 hasn't done himself any favours granted, but he was responding (or not responding) to disruptive and disgraceful provocation that was deliberately designed to smear and "get him". One cannot seperate his trivial lack of judgement from the motives and tone of those pursuing him. I didn't mix this, it was mixed in the beginning. I see no evidence of significant incompetence, and have no wish to reward nastiness by allowing it to claim a scalp. That would not be useful, as it just encourages the paranoid tendency who like to use wikipedia as a political battleground to continue.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solidarity, esprit de corps, whatever you call it, it all boils down to telling the knockers when to get off. --TS 20:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that there's some political battling going on. I wouldn't really know- I ignore that stuff. Battles aside, there are also just regular editors who want competence and accountability from their arbcom. I don't find a lack of good judgement at all "trivial"- from arbitrators, I expect better than that. You should too. Friday (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one's judgement is infallible. So, it is a matter of degrees. I don't see a lack of judgement the level you may do. I see FAR more danger to wikipedia in the things you are "ignoring", and taken together, I'd call for at least one desysopping and several bannings before I'd call for an arb to resign here. Friday, I'd encourage you to step back and look at this in the round. If you acquaint yourself with the things you currently say you don't know about you might well find yourself with a different view here. (Perhaps not, but I'd still ask you to look that you might understand where I'm coming from.)--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right, there are two separate issues. One is trolling - which should be dealt with firmly and decisively - the other is for FT2 to consider privately - there is enough feedback here that anybody would be prompted to consider whether they can continue to do the job effectively regardless of the merit of the accusations. The zoophilia edit is a matter of very close to zero importance, Damian's use of it to try to torpedo FT2's candidacy was disgraceful and ironically may well have backfired on him anyway, but there are other issues, regardless of this catalytic disute, and those require thought and reflection - and wise counsel. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I deleted a blog post which I made in a moment of anger shortly after making it. I regret having made it. But it was only there for 24 hours at most. The oversights happened afterwards, and they happened in the context of an agreement (involving Jimbo) that we could discuss them in private. After they were oversighted, all trust was lost. And remember, the fact they were oversighted was not admitted at all (it took Giano to force that one into the open). I was made to seem like a gibbering lunatic for about 8 months afterwards. Can you not see that was my whole and entire grudge? If just one person had said 'oops, it was a mistake, let's talk about this like grown-ups' that would have been the end for me. But I was made to endure purgatory. Peter Damian (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you regretted the blog post, why did you care that the edits that allowed you to do it were removed? So what? Nothing here excuses the disgusting pursuit of this issue.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the post on the explicit understanding we would discuss the edits in private. Part of this clearly involved the edits remaining in place. As soon as they were deleted, of course, the parties involved pretended that they had never existed. Does that not strike you as immoral? Peter Damian (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit] Why do you use the word 'disgusting' to signify the pursuit of the issue? Moral disagreement? Disapproval? Peter Damian (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want to discuss them? Once content edits are reverted (let alone deleted or oversighted) there is no need to discuss them unless the editor wishes to reinsert them. Did anyone claim they "never existed"? And again, why does this justify the trolling and drama stacking. I can't see any justification here whatsoever, except a determination to embarrass someone for bad edits.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to JzG's endorsement

1. Except, Guy, that, in this case, he had "beaten his wife." The "gotcha" question that is so popular now as a meme among the right wing is not applicable. I believe that I had been gotten by a sabotage question, but the thing here is that he had inappropriately called for oversight and then lied about it. Being embarrassed is fine, but what he was actually embarrassed about was his early edits, and that is the wrong thing. I.e. he beat his wife and then was embarrassed that he pulled strings at City Hall to have the police record sealed. There are two malpractices there, and if people are clobbered on ArbCom voting for using the wrong pronoun in a dispute, then something actually involving the misuse of tools and something that shows favoritism and bad practice among "trusted former arbitrators" is valid and not a "gotcha" question. (And, even if it were a bad question, which it wasn't, that would change the answer's breaking our core principle of honesty, transparency, and discussion.) Geogre (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Actually, we don't know whether or not FT2 requested the oversight. I don't believe we even know how Gerard came to be aware of the mess. In December 2007 I knew 2 admins with oversight rights that were in the loop prior to the oversighting, and neither of them was Gerard. Gerard's post completely omits any description of how he became aware of the mess. GRBerry 16:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC) I see that Gerard has below said that FT2 solicited help of unspecified form. Unclear is why Gerard received that plea for help. GRBerry 18:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on view by Sarcasticidealist

• If there's an ace in his hole, it should have been played already. Do you expect this yet-to-be-produced evidence to exonerate rather than further damn him, Steve? Sounds more like a filibuster to me. — CharlotteWebb 20:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no particular expectations. My trust in FT2 is not high presently. But my trust for Arb Comm as a whole is high enough that when other Arbs say things like "There are multiple options being considered and we need to permit enough time for all of the arbitrators to have a chance to see, review and contribute to the discussion...I'd please ask for a minimal amount of patience.", "I anticipate that there will be further developments in the reasonably near term regarding the underlying situation.", and "I would prefer for us to agree a suitable way of inquiring independently into the oversights.", I'm inclined to give them the time they're asking for. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on view by David Gerard

Any more questions? - David Gerard (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, yes... Why are you unaware that Peter Damian is no longer banned? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Yes, and it's one of the silliest decisions I can think of - David Gerard (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I know that after you oversighted the edits, you emailed Jimbo to apologize and try and have the edits reinstated. Did you ever email FT2 to let him know that you had assisted him in stopping the trolling? Thatcher 21:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I didn't say "we'd better reinstate them" (for what? To then be deleted?), Jimbo suggested it, but the PITA factor combined with the lack of point in doing so led to no-one bothering. I let FT2 know I'd zapped the edit (I believe it was one, I haven't checked back in the log) - David Gerard (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Would you believe two edits? Otherwise, fair enough and thanks. Thatcher 21:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I wonder if this statement, and its delayed timing, sheds new light on claims of a close relationship between FT2 and David Gerard. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • "Delayed timing"? No-one asked me. Including you, an arbitrator. You know, you could actually ask people questions instead of trying to divine entrails even when they're answering you directly - David Gerard (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • Sorry that you took offence, because I was really trying to make the point that if (as is alleged) FT2 and you were really good friends in regular contact, then that would hardly be consistent with you being unaware of the longrunning difficulty over the use of oversight on his edits. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • Sorry, I took your phrasing wrongly, that's a quite reasonable question (or two). We're not "close personal friends", I know FT2 through Wikipedia and we have had occasion for emails and even the odd phone call (where I get to offer crusty old Wikipedia/Wikimedia oldtimer advice on the idiocies of wiki politics), and have also discovered we have a pile of friends in common, the "good God, what are you doing here?" experience. Basically we're a couple of Wikipedians who've met in person. I was aware of this current puffed-up idiocy and regarded it as puffed-up idiocy best ignored as hard as possible. Then someone mentioned to me "hey, Bishonen blocked FT2!" and I went "good Lord" and went reading, and saw my name and opinions on me being written at great length with no actual reference to me so figured it might be worth introducing actual facts to the batshit insane wild surmising. Also, I'm putting off writing today's notnews. - David Gerard (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Gerard, you have my full permission to publish any emails between FT2 and myself, although they are very limited and even more few. Quite what you are doing with them is far from surprising, as you are in this up to your neck! So Gerard publish them and be damned, but ensure they are published in full - and then take the consequences - and prepare Jimbo - to publish the emails I sent him regarding Peter Damian (with whom you claim I am in) - you see Gerard you are floundering in shit creek without a paddle. You are more than badly advised - you seem to be deceived. I take it your threat of "header" (I'm sure FT2 can put it up with full headers, with Giano's permission of course) means you are planning to expose me in RL, well good luck to you - you will fail miserably at that too. I suppose now you must go to, your threats are empty, stupid and show you for the bully and liar you are. Giano (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Er, no, it means "to show that this is the actual email sent." I don't have a copy of any such emails myself. You seem to think I'm out to get you; I'm not, I just find your predilection for drama and gratuitous personal attacks wearying and wish you'd stop. By the way, I just read through this and it's excellent stuff (quite sincerely) - David Gerard (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Publish my emails (with the dreaded headers) get on and do it! C'mon what are you waiting for? Giano (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try actually reading David's reply again. I don't think you understood what he was saying before you posted this. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no you don't, Ms Knott, - we read this perfectly - I want these emails published - where are they? Giano (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We? Who would that be? As for the email "I don't have a copy of any such emails myself." tells you what you need to know. Go back and read what David wrote. He is not trying to "out" you. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I address this email business on the talk page. Thatcher 22:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The oversighted edit should have been single-revision deleted. This was because Peter Damian aka Dbuckner was using it in a trolling post attempting to paint FT2 as a bestialist.

You just don't get it, David. The community can make up their own mind what Peter Damian is up to. They can decide for themselves what FT2's edits showed. You don't have the right to hide these things. It is not up to you to think for the community. If Peter Damian was painting FT2 as a bestialist then why did you censor from the community the very information that would allow us to judge for ourselves? Do you really think you're that smart and that the rest of us are that stupid? This is not only a profound failure of judgment but it betrays an astonishing arrogance - you should lay down your flags, you aren't fit to have them. --Duk 21:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emotionally put but a valid point. Actions have consequences, and oversight is there to get rid of death threats, outing, severe BLP violations, etc. It is not there to hide the embarrassing edits of Wikipedia editors, no matter how much they might want them to go away. Not during an arbcom election. Moreschi (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. And deleting the edits (instead of oversighting them) for the same flawed reasoning is nearly as bad. Any chance you'll reply to my questions, David?--Duk 22:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feh. There seems to be some kind of idea that content which can be used to attack people is in some way sacrosanct. Any edit that is long in the past and is being used to deliberately smear someone can and should be quietly nuked. Do we have single-revision deletion yet? We didn't then, and the process of nuking and then restoring a page was more or less guaranteed to create mass drama and have the deleted revision published on WR within the hour. Even if it were a Really Big Deal - whihc it isn't - there is no evidence of any pattern of abuse by David. Rather the opposite; of all Wikipedians he is probably among the most likely to tell people to grow up if they request oversighting of trivial things. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not necessarily just about what the wiki community might think, it's about the real world effects, 'defamation' in a way, if it had been used to cause trouble in real life. This blog was not on wikipedia, the claims were taken beyond the site. Sticky Parkin 22:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several problems with this. The biggest, that the blog was deleted some time before the oversights were made. There was an agreement between myself and Will Scribe (in which Jimbo was involved) that we would discuss my concerns about the content of these edits. In return, I deleted the blog entirely. As soon as I turned to the matter of compiling a set of diffs, two of them were deleted. Peter Damian (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's more or less the occasion for deleting a rev - David Gerard (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you will make edits like that and then run for high office on one of the world's most high-profile websites, what do you expect? Moreschi (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phone calls and email from nutters stalking you? Slander in what passes for the IT press? Force 14 gales in a dolly teacup? - David Gerard (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's about what I would expect. It's wrong, but does not mean that hiding the revision to the point where even admins cannot view it is the right response. Moreschi (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I get those and I'm not even an arbitrator. Pshaw. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, David is now wrapping himself in the self-righteous banner, talking about stalking and slander, apparently as some vague rationale for his actions, although it's not quite clear. Except that FT2 has the benefit of anonymity, and therefore community has only his edit record for when it comes to casting elections votes. Your reasoning doesn't stand up, David. --Duk 22:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Duk, you're entitled to your opinion of course, yet the tone of your post appears to suggest that such problems never happen. They do. Google 'Durova' 'David Shankbone' 'P2Pnet News' for two examles. He and I went public together after we both opened FBI cases over serious harassment that arose from our volunteer work. I'm no insider on the details of the situation David Gerard is referring to, just saying serious problems do occur. Consider yourself fortunate if you haven't encountered any firsthand. Durova^Charge! 23:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Durova, FT2 chose to make over a thousand zoophilia related edits - that was his choice, and probably a factor in his choosing anonymity. For anonymous editors, we only have their contribution history to judge them when elections are held. If someone's anonymity is blown and they are being harassed in RL because of some embarrassing edits then go ahead and oversight. But this wasn't the case, the edits were oversighted as part of an election debate - the material censored from the community. There was no breach of anonymity or RL harassment. --23:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Duk, when the trolls first figured out my real name David Gerard salted it in article space. I wasn't aware of David's action until weeks later when a third party figured it out by accident and pointed it out to me. Wouldn't have known other than that because as far as I recall David never told me, but perhaps he did mention it once and I just don't recall. If someone had come along and spun a conspiracy theory about the matter I would have been at a loss for words. Not many examples to go by, except a good faith supposition that David is like that with other people too. Durova^Charge! 01:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Durova, you're comparing mangos and pineapples. David didn't remove FT2's real name and salt it in article space. He ovesighted some of FT2's embarrassing edits that were being criticized during an election. --Duk 02:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wikipedia:Requests for comment/David Gerard, if that really worries you. All I'm saying is that it doesn't necessarily reflect on FT2. Other concerns do, with less of a stretch. Just sharing the perspective, and willing to disagree respectfully. Durova^Charge! 04:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you for offering to answer questions; that's admirable. I've got several. You state: Jimbo asked me about it afterwards and I went "good Lord, should have been a deletion not an oversight, I shall be more careful in future." Jimbo concurred that single-rev deletion to quash obnoxious WR-sourced idiot trolling like this was quite in order. QUESTION 1: (a) But a deletion available for anyone to read (and link to) wouldn't have quashed anything, would it (or am I missing something -- is "single-rev" deletion something regular editors are unable to see)? (b) Wasn't the purpose of your oversighting was to hide FT2's edits from those voting in the election? Q2: When you state, I shall be more careful in future, do you mean to imply that you had simply made an error like a typo in choosing to use oversight rather than simply delete? Or do you admit that this was an error in judgment? Q3: If you agree that this was an error in judgment, do you agree with Duk's statement ("Outside view by Duk" above): What matters is that the oversight tool was abused to undermine the fairness of an election. It took away from the community the ability to judge a candidate and make a fair and informed vote.? Q4: You state, Jimbo asked me about it afterwards. When? -- Noroton (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• David, you repeatedly cry that "no-one's actually asked me any direct questions as yet" and "No-one asked me". Look: [1]. That's somebody asking you. Here and here we have your very unhelpful replies. Perhaps you have forgotten. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the time, the question was whether the oversight happened or not. That was confirmed by others soon after. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The oversighted edit should have been single-revision deleted.

• Why --Duk 21:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC) moved to front page, since that's where DG was replying --Duk 21:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• If it can be explained so easily, why has FT2 not done so? Verbal chat 21:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David, you should know that I have never considered seriously the argument that you tried to "fix" the election. Once I was informed that you had admitted your mistake and apologized, I considered the matter closed, at least with respect to your involvement. Although I think that a brief on-wiki acknowledgment, perhaps after the elections were closed, would have helped put matters right, but there is no precedent for that sort of thing when oversight is involved. And thank you for posting independent confirmation that you met FT2 before the oversights. That makes FT2's continued denial that he knew you before the election, at best, a legalism. I do ask you to answer two additional questions.

1. Did FT2 ask you for help dealing with the defamatory blog post? If so, did he ask specifically for oversight?
2. Did you ever tell FT2, after removing the edits, that you had done so? (It would seem odd, after going out on a limb to help someone in trouble, if you did not at least drop him a note saying, "I tried to help you by doing X, let me know if you need anything else.") Thatcher 21:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David, you've confirmed that you did tell FT2 that you'd oversighted the edits. Roughly when did you make him aware of it? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(answering you both) We'd met once; I wouldn't count that as "know." We know each other as people now, but I wouldn't say we did then. (Though I'm sure that won't satisfy the conspiracy theorists.) FT2 asked me (and maybe others, I have no idea) what to do about this; such troll magnets have generally been deleted or in extreme cases oversighted. This wasn't an oversight-worthy example, as I've acknowledged. I let him know it was gone soon after I zapped it, as I recall. I'm not dredging through my email archives right this moment, though - David Gerard (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A correction on the statement that FT2 and Giano exchanged emails. FT2 has stated in emails to me that Giano commented on the oversighted diffs and found them "factual and harmless." This seems to refer to on-wiki comments, not to private email between FT2 and Giano, and Giano denies saying it. David's confusion is understandable since FT2 has made this claim in email many times. Someone should check Giano's contributions for the time period; if Giano did not say this on-wiki but in a private email to FT2, and Giano now denies it, FT2 and Giano need to work that out. Thatcher 22:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Sounds entirely plausible, yes. So say "communications" then, whatever. I didn't actually see a denial from Giano - David Gerard (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had Giano in a chat window, although his denial is why he angrily gave permission to repost any such emails. I can't find a diff of Giano saying the edits were ok, but he is a prolific commenter and I haven't checked everywhere. If there is no diff of Giano saying on-wiki that the edits were "harmless" (or the equivalent), and no email from Giano to FT2, that goes again to FT2's credibility in answering questions related to this matter. And thank you for your answers. Thatcher 22:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answers, David. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on view by LessHorrid vanU

Users who have stopped beating their dogs:

• Furthermore, I have stopped beating my dog - David Gerard (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there something you'd like to tell us, DG?:) Sticky Parkin 22:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I ... only ... have .. cats. *sob* - David Gerard (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's really funny, David. Ha ha. Any chance you'll answer my questions above?--Duk 22:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on view by JoshuaZ

• The oversighting was a big deal. It was one of the conditions of an unblock that I supply diffs. Scribe asked for them. I would have supplied them, they were oversighted. It is a 'big deal' Peter Damian (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true and unfortunate but there's no reason to think that DG oversighted the edits to prevent you from getting unblocked or anything similar. If it helps, part of my point was that there were many issues here aside from the oversighting itself. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on view by Duk

• Trolling, smearing and the like is not a valid part of any Wikipedia decision making procedure. FT2 won by a landslide, the difference owuld have een marginal at best, and if this particular part of the case reflects badly on anyone then it is Peter Damian. There comes a point at which, having lost one round of a long-term battle, one must simply accept it and move on. This endless rehashing of the failure of Damian's blatant trolling of FT2's candidacy really does smack of sour grapes - and that applies even if FT2 is a sheepshagger (which frankly I doubt, but in this modern world I guess anything is possible). Guy (Help!) 22:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ahem, the matter had moved off-wiki by the 6th, as I point out above and below. My grievance is that the oversighting happened after a lot of agreements had taken place, including with Jimmy. The rest is unconscionable. FT2 won by a landslide, of course, so why the oversights? Peter Damian (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Trolling, smearing ... How would we even know? The relevant edits were censored in order to aid FT2's campaign. Don't you think the community is capable of deciding for themselves if it was Trolling and smearing? If it was an unjust smearing, isn't censoring the edits the very worst thing to do, since you can no longer demonstrate that it was an unjust smear? To repeat what I said above to Durova; If someone's anonymity is blown and they are being harassed in RL because of some embarrassing edits then go ahead and oversight. But this wasn't the case, the edits were oversighted as part of an election debate - the material censored from the community. There was no breach of anonymity or RL harassment. --Duk 00:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The relevant edits were censored in order to aid FT2's campaign." - given that David Gerard has denied this being his intention, do you have some evidence for that claim? If you don't, beware libelling people. It is certainly an assumption of bad faith unless you do have evidence. Do you?--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, let me rephrase; "The relevant edits were censored during FT2's campaign." --Duk 00:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Duk, David Gerard admits his Oversight was a mistake and an overreaction. Normal adults occasionally overreact when surprised by a hot button taboo. The accusation, if better substantiated, might have affected whether I'd sit down for shish kebabs with FT2 if I ever met him face to face, but it doesn't matter one whit to my opinion of him as an arbitrator. I have questions regarding FT2 for other reasons, but am inclined to suppose this particular matter is a nonissue unless ArbCom says it is one. I have made 740 edits to the biography of a Catholic saint but I'm not a Catholic. There's a distinction to be made between the editor and the edit. Durova^Charge! 01:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, David admitted making a mistake in oversighting. And yet he still doesn't get it, he thinks deletion was the right thing to do. This isn't a case of stalking or RL harassment - this is a case of someone making edits that another editor was outraged about and made a scene over. David took matters into his own hands and censored those edits, taking away the community's ability to look, read, judge and think for ourselves. David must think he's that smart and we're that dumb.
  • I really don't think people mind these types of mistakes. What they can't tolerate is the arrogance, the thick-sculled stubbornness to acknowledge a simple point and the foot dragging that goes on for, at this point, years. To repeat my earlier comment which David still hasn't responded to :The community can make up their own mind what Peter Damian is up to. They can decide for themselves what FT2's edits showed. You don't have the right to hide these things. It is not up to you to think for the community. If Peter Damian was painting FT2 as a bestialist then why did you censor from the community the very information that would allow us to judge for ourselves? Do you really think you're that smart and that the rest of us are that stupid? This is not only a profound failure of judgment but it betrays an astonishing arrogance - you should lay down your flags, you aren't fit to have them --Duk 06:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to jump in here real quick. Duk - would your position be any different if the context wasn't an election?--Tznkai (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. But mostly it's the fact that this has dragged on for over a year. Also the smug, condescending and arrogant tone from some of the parties doesn't help. It sums to more than the parts. --Duk 06:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, not going to comment on anyone's tone or behavior going on right now other than to say its certainly not the brightest moment Wikipedia has ever had. Back to the substantial issue though: let me flip it around for a second - can you see how deleting the revision would be reasonable (ignoring the election issue) if one Wikipedian was defending another from what he thought was a sensationalist/tabloidish attack on another Wikipedian? Let me further speculate that David Gerard, being one of the old hands around here - thought of the situation as "an election is no excuse to try to tarnish the reputation of another editor" - we all know how WP:RFA can turn into an exercise in public humiliation. Gerards reaction to protect another Wikipedian from perceived attack, when thought of in this context - is reasonable - perhaps laudable - although as the results have shown, rather unwise. This may not settle the issue at all, and shouldn't be taken as a blanket excuse - but I think it can mitigate some of the anger here. All I'm saying is - the instinct to protect FT2 from Damien's edits is not necessarily a corrupt and craven one, but in fact natural decency.--Tznkai (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Those are all wonderful points one would use to rationalize a mistake. The road to hell is paved with good intentions - it's just that some people think their good intentions are all that matter. Tznkai, what do you think the consequences are if we allow arbcome candidates to have their edit history 'adjusted' every time something embarrassing comes up? What do you think the consequences are if the community allows David Gerard to start thinking and judging for us and censoring at will. What would happen if everytime a scandal erupts the person in a position of power and authority knows all he has to do is drag his feet until it's forgotten ... --Duk 06:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Lets be fair, implying things about someone's sexual practices based on their Wikipedia edits isn't just "embarrassing" its an attempt (or runs the likely risk) of social ostracization. Likewise, I think its fair that once the context of the election is stripped away, thwarting such an attempt through revision deletion is understandable - if suitably unwise. It isn't "censorship" although it is an exercise of discretion. The sticking point is not David Gerard and his supposed arrogance, censorship, or judgment - but the election itself - and the position you seem to hold is that elections are somehow sacrosanct. Thats not a bad or uncommon view - but its relatively new in Wikipedia culture. Were the edits in question legitimate criticism in the first place? I wasn't there - but it sounds a lot more like mudslinging than legitimate criticism that will add anything useful to the debate. Should "the people" have the right to judge for themselves? I think there are reasonable arguments going both ways - but eventually you're going to have to draw a line that says "this is acceptable in election discourse - and this is not." Those policies, as far as I know, don't exist - and we have significant and unresolved tensions on the "freedom of speech" concerns in elections and the "basic civility" concerns. I guess I don't see this as clear cut as you do. That having been said on a purely pragmatic level - the way this was handled, with the summation of the actions all the actors, clearly ended poorly. I'd say the core problem is not the oversighting itself but the year long intrigue that has enacted since.--Tznkai (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Lets be fair, implying things about someone's sexual practices based on their Wikipedia edits isn't just "embarrassing" its an attempt (or runs the likely risk) of social ostracization. Then say so - and let people read, think and decide for themselves. Don't go and censor the relevant information which prevents the community from not only do so, but interferes in an election. And don't forget, this FT2 account made over a thousand zoophilia edits - do you want to protest the unfairness of what people think about that?
              • OK, I'm done arguing. I'll just repeat what I said above, mistakes are no big deal. But then you add the foot dragging and the attitude and a few other things and it begins to stick in my craw. Really, how hard is it to acknowledge that you shouldn't fuck with someones edit history during an election, because that's what we base our votes on; how hard is it to acknowledge that the community can decide for ourselves whether PD was unfair with his criticism, and we don't need DG to censor and think for us.--Duk 19:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's a matter of looking with different eyes, but the tone I infer from David's post is that he had thought the claims were too scurrilous and irrelevant to ever be taken seriously, mixed with surprise and disgust that they actually were--and amazement that matters had gone so far without anybody asking his account of things. It's neither a calm nor a measured response, and obviously his finger has not been close to the wind. David's a fellow I've always usually liked better in practice than in theory; this week it's the reverse. Durova^Charge! 18:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Summary: this is an idiot tempest driven by a banned WR troll and Giano's wounded sensibilities. Just because the wiki's biggest smoke machines are furiously pumping out clouds doesn't actually imply there's a fire. (David Gerard)
• This post strikes me as coming from someone with an emotional age of about 12. I'm not comfortable with this person having checkuser, oversight, adminship and access to the arbcom mailing list. Oh, and the 'Banned Troll' is not banned, nor is he a troll. He's a serious editor who's been creating quality content for over five years. --Duk 19:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a calm or a measured response--looks like we're in agreement there. Durova^Charge! 20:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You may not be comfortable with it, I may not be comfortable with it, but Jimbo is - so don't waste your time commenting further. Jimbo will never agree to the removal of any rights given to this moderator of the Arbcom's mailing list. It's my view Gerard's actions are as reprehensible as FT2's and it's unfair that FT2 is carrying the bucket of blame alone; I thing there is little to chose between the pair of them - he claims I create a smoke-screen, but compared to him, I am a kid with my first cigarette behind the school bicycle hut. Giano (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on view by Peter Damian

FT said that he asked others for help of whatever kind they suggested, and others probably shared the request. When it comes to you perhaps telling them the day before that you would stop doing stuff like that and removing your blog, that might come under instances where AGF has to be tempered by common sense, which the policy says itself, as it was a matter whch they saw as with such nasty potential consequences, and they could not be sure you wouldn't do the same again. In such circumstances with them holding such beliefs, someone's word is not enough; with such beliefs it would be only common sense for them to oversight it. They didn't know what the edits were going to be used for next. After all that wasn't the end of it, they did get onto WR, an some admins are paranoid about WR, also the blog was not where you initially said it would end, at least while the blog was up, you did say you might report him to the RSPCA or something.

I'm not an FT2 lol but at that point I had forgot that at that point you had said perhaps some authorities should be contacted, it was over a year ago after all. I was not so personally involved in the issue at that point to remember all the details (if I was FT, I would have remembered all the details  :) ) I only remembered you said maybe he should reported to the RFPCA, or something like that, when FT2 made some recent posts to his talk page which implied there were privacy or risk of harassment issues so it should be dealt with just by the arbs, or something. I for some reason always feel sympathy for those being picked on who I feel are the underdog (even if they've possibly acted wrongly, as I did for User:TheFieryAngel, though at that point I didn't realise all the details, either) and at this point, FT2's being part of the hierarchy is not giving him the backup it once did- so he is one. Sticky Parkin 14:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on view by Dtobias

Users who wish Dan would stop beating this particular dead horse

1. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Although I understand where Dan is coming from, it would be helpful if he didn't try to pigeonhole everything into BADSITES. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who wish Guy would get off his high horse, whether it's dead or alive

1. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Pretty funny, given that you seem determined to cast every single dispute in terms of BADSITES, when the rest of the community has pretty much forgotten it. Move on, Dan, you are living in the past. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the horse is dead. Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FT2 has announced his resignation as an arbitrator [2]. I take this opportunity to thank him for twelve months of excellent service. --TS 09:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Best of the luck for the future. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A sad and pathetic day for wikipedia. Once again aggrieved vested users have managed to poison the well. I genuinely despair for wikipedia.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completely agreed with Scott MacDonald. There was no reason for FT2 to resign; this is a disappointing day indeed. GlassCobra 11:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to leave this case in bitterness. We should be looking forward. I feel optimistic that challenges like this ultimately strengthen Wikipedia's infrastructure by detecting weak points (in the structure, not the individuals and certainly not FT2) that can be improved. --TS 11:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Too long; didn't read. Is this a resignation in name only? I.E. is he still going be an unofficial arb, on the mailing lists and such? With his past record, forgive me for not being completely trusting. Friday (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A pound of flesh is insufficient? Pathetic.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm? There's no punishment here- simply the removal of an editor from a position of responsibility to which he showed himself ill-suited. That's the sort of thing that should be seen as no big deal, not some terrible punishment. I just wondered how real it was. I guess we'll find out in time. Friday (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you explain what evidence there is that he is not responsible enough to have access to the mailing list? As one user who had deep concerns about some of FT2's actions, I have no issues and indeed would prefer that he stay on the mailing list. He is clearly very good at some sort of difficult work (such as the Poetlister case), and we lose little by having him stay on the list. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's more a case of common sense and concern for appearances, than any specific concern that he would (for example) disclose private information. Haven't there been enough instances of trouble with former arbs still being arbitrators-in-fact? I would assume the committee would want to distance themselves here, to salvage whatever credibility they still enjoy. But it sounds like the plan is that the resignation is in name only.. I guess that's up to the committee members, but it seems like a bad move to me. I can maybe understand an arb whose term had expired still being an arb-in-fact, but someone who lost the confidence of the community? That's another kettle of fish. Friday (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • He doesn't have a vote - he has, by all accounts, had his access purged from all current Arb areas. He may or may not have influence - which is entirely dependent on the Arbiters deciding to listen or not - nothing to do with e-mail access. Speaking simply as a clerk, he, or any other former Arbiter tried to do anything on the wiki that was clearly marked Arb only, such as vote, comment in arbiters section, etc etc, he would be reverted or otherwise treated like anyone else who made the same mistake. In otherwords: he's not an Arb - let it be.--Tznkai (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I read enough to know that he's trying to leave the door open, should Jimmy wish to appoint him again. It's my view that, just as when a person has resigned their tools "under a cloud" they need to reapply through normal channels, so should FT2 have to reapply through normal channels if he wishes to sit on the committee again. SDJ 15:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck? A "fair hearing?"

The ArbCom election statements were a fair hearing, as most of the community had no ill conception of the candidate. That "venue" was wasted and the character and open mindedness of the voters was discounted by the candidate. FT2's talk page was a fair venue, before FT2's activity on ArbCom started to show a siege mentality and disregard for evidence or policy. That, too, was wasted.

A "hearing" is for crimes. The vital thing here is that a person who lies, evades, and excuses isn't going to be trusted, and trust is the only thing that people have to enforce policy or negotiate. If I speak to a newbie, that newbie could comply because I'm an admin, but I hope she or he complies because I explain myself clearly and concisely and in a way that encourages compliance.

Finally, the implication in that statement is that Wikipedia, in front of users is not "fair." I.e. it is a repudiation of the basis of Wikipedia itself. It is saying that, while the community is a "fair" venue for promoting admins, for sanctioning "regular" users, for RfC, for blocking, for all sorts of things, it is mysteriously not "fair" when the community dislikes a person's behavior and that person had been on ArbCom. That kind of hypocrisy shows precisely why FT2 is not the victim of a "smoke machine" (thanks, DG, for dismissing hard working editors with such a delightfully... personal... insult) or "troll," but the "victim" of his own bad acts, and Wikipedia users (the aggrieved) are the only ones he should answer to. Geogre (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're not just a teensy bit revolted at what Peter Damian did, then? You do not support efforts to minimize the damage he caused, I take it? --TS 11:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Troll is not the right word here. But it does convey something of the disgust and contempt that should be directed at those who have deliberately exploited this situation because of their own nasty agendas. The initial oversight "offence" (misjudgement if we assume good faith - remember that?) was trivial, far less than the evil trolling it was designed to prevent. The issue has been dragged up, blown up, and exploited by the usual predictable people who stop at nothing, and do any level of damage to the project and other people, in order to settle scores and win the next round of their little battle. Sure, FT2 has handled this poorly (but, frankly, who wouldn't when embarrassing triviality is dragged up for political reasons?). However, what's happened is that a hard-working arb (and those are too rare) who has done a lot of hard work for this project, has been smeared and hounded by the unscrupulous, the aggrieved, and the genuinely anti-authority paranoid. We have big issues on wikipedia, and those we should spend time on, because they matter. But this? This is the same low-grade soap-opera politic that ignores terrorism, the economy, and world poverty whilst it obsesses with the stains on a dress, and whether someone prevaricated (yes, maybe lied) when confronted with embarrassing things of a personal nature. You can try to make this about "truth, justice and all that", but it isn't. It's personal, political and opportunist. Well, you've got your man impeached now. Enjoy your victory. But, pardon me, if I find your gloating pathetic.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what Peter Damian has done. I do not go to Wikipedia Review, have never been there. I know that, during the elections, he was asked by an administrator about the situation. He lied. Remember what happened when I used a pronoun on my talk page? Both of you are making the same tedious mistake, the same mistake that promotes and creates these "dramas": you are playing games of personality. There are no personalities here. Both of you will be forgotten in a month, if you stop editing. FT2 has been personality driven as well, and that, above all, disqualified him from arbitrating, and the defenses of his actions have been all about personality as well. You want to talk about how you like this person, dislike that person, etc. That can all get stuffed: if we comply with policies, we won't have to worry about making thin, foolish excuses for people who break them.

You want to excuse FT2 lying, evading, and accusing you as well as me of being "unfair" and incapable of assessing his conduct because you don't like Peter Damian? Really? You want to take this matter away from Wikipedia's community because you think FT2 was "hard working?" Being hard working for the wrong reasons or with improper aims or illicit means is not a virtue. Mussolini and Pol Pot were hard working. Peter Damian has been hard working at keeping this matter current, and you don't give him credit for that. (And Doc, your invocation of "AGF" is pitiably irrelevant, and I'm sure you know it.)

Gloating, Doc? Really? No. I'm asking that we use Wikipedia to settle disputes, that we don't use private channels for settling our disputes. Disputes about Tony had to be in the "unfair" venue of Wikipedia. Those about Kelly had to be. Those about David Gerard had to be. Those about me had to be. However, for FT2, suddenly Wikipedia is "unfair" to hear the wisdom he has to offer (wisdom like boasting of his recent block of Giano). Please read what I say, and not what you wish I said, if you mean to reply. Geogre (talk) 12:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have one focus here: Wikipedia is the venue for settling Wikipedia disputes. I have been relatively-to-entirely uninvolved in the FT2 matter, so anyone who says that "I" have some kind of victory is either suffering delusions or offering distortions. IRC is not proper. Private mailing lists are not proper. The users are the only power. The users are the funding, and the users are the workers, and the users are the judges in cases like these. The mistrusted venue is the hidden one. Geogre (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you laid idealistic principle aside, and considered real people, you'd soon see that posting everything on the internet for all the world to see is simply not an acceptable way to proceed. The "right to know" at some point needs to give way to some level of trust, where we choose people and let them get on with it. Unfortunately, wikipedia is poisoning the well of trust. Geogre, I've said this before, but I'll say it again: spend two days on the OTRS queue where you are forced to think about people, hurt and dignity and not the rights of hobbying wikipedians who can turn off their computers, and I'm confident that your idealistic crusade would be laid aside. No seriously, you are a bright guy, and unless you utterly lack compassion (and I wouldn't think you do), you'd soon see what I mean.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the dispute here? What did FT2 do that harmed the encyclopedia? What policy did he break? --TS 12:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He lied. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He lied(maybe) over some embarrassing personal thing which had no real relevance to him being an arb, and you demand a special prosecution, impeachment, examination of the stains? Sorry, if I smell disproportionality, hypocrisy and political agendas.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't lie over some embarrassing personal thing. He said the first he'd heard of the oversighting was in July 2008, seven months after it happened. That was demonstrably false and there was nothing personal about it, in addition to which all he really had to do was say nothing. This idea that FT2 was embarrassed by his edits is quite wrong. He made something like 1,500 to the article and talk page in question, and he stands by them. What was at issue was that he misled people about his knowledge of the oversighting.

I'm amazed that you think misleading people, and continuing to mislead when challenged, has "no real relevance to him being an arb." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I don't care. I've said he handled this badly, but I find those who have hounded, assumed bad faith, battled and disrupted to make something of this trivial nonsense far more reprehensible. There are a bunch of people just waiting to exploit and spin anything in order to get their political revenge. They have succeeded in creating a toxic environment, and self-righteous moral superiority ill becomes them. Gross hypocrisy offends me more than small lies.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, that's absurd. You're suggesting ignoring misdeeds because some of the miscreant's critics have done bad things, really? I don't see this toxic environment you're talking about- I see people discussing things they think are a problem. Are your observations based on things that have happened on the wiki, or something else? Friday (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well we've just lost a perfectly good arbitrator because of utterly frivolous challenges of some oversighting that was done by a third party to scotch a silly troll. I think that's pretty toxic. --TS 17:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improper use of oversight, which indicts David Gerard as well, and then, during an election, lying. That might invalidate the election results. However, since that time, a repeated effort to conceal the editor's past behavior, which we don't allow with any user. You have changed account names, for example, and yet your history went with you. Well, when someone gets oversight to obscure one's own past editing and does not admit it, that is deceptiveness. We have one thing we require: honest editing. Using friends or off-wiki venues to obscure intent, act, or history is very serious. It is, in fact, at least as bad as the folks who bus in from WR or other "badsites" to disrupt things. More to the point, in the absurd "make hay and the candidate goes down in flames" atmosphere of the ArbCom elections, something like that is not something a person should be able to hide, and the continuing deception shows a character that the community cannot respect, much less trust. The content of the oversighted edits is irrelevant. Invoking the Alberto Gonzales defense is.

But let's stay on topic: I did not say "hearing." That is the unsigned "has resigned" person's language. That person invoked legal trial language, so the question is properly answered by that person. However, that FT2 believes that he needs a "fair hearing" in some venue other than Wikipedia testifies, by itself, that he believes he has lost all credibility with Wikipedians. It's a confession of being incapable of acting as an arbitrator for Wikipedians. It is also a bad gesture, a bad idea, and a bad impulse: Wikipedia is the only venue. Geogre (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh do stop being silly about the oversighting. It's an utterly trivial matter. --TS 17:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit cheeky that FT2 thinks that neither the community nor arbcom are capable enough to assess things fairly in his case. Oh well, I suppose there's no need to rub salt into the wound, but you make a good point which I was discussing with someone only this morning, Geogre. Sticky Parkin 19:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When asked about the deletion or oversighting of an item that pertains to you in any way, always refer the inquiry to the person who performed the deletion or oversight. This makes it much more difficult for misunderstandings to arise. The person performing an action always takes responsibility for that action. --TS 11:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A simple public "oops" from David Gerard last December (or even from Jimbo if he felt there was no need to personally identify the person who goofed) would have averted much drama over the last year, of which this is a single facet. Thatcher 11:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say you're right Thatcher, really do, but I wonder if it is naive of us both to believe this wouldn't have caused a lot of drama regardless. A public oops probably would've been the right thing to do anyway though.---Tznkai (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back in December 2007 only one person cared about the oversighted edits. I think it would have been fine. I wrote my accountability essay and support the review board proposal partly in the hope that openly acknowledging the occasional "oops" is the right thing to do, and will lead to more acceptance and less drama (with the corollary that someone with too many oopses is going to be asked to stand down). Thatcher 15:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you (the general you) want people to say "oops" more often, it's necessary that saying oops (and making amends where appropriate) is a way of moving on, rather than an opening for further attacks. Because the current climate often does seem to be the latter, and for that reason, a "don't ever admit ANY wrongdoing" approach often is (or at least seems like) the best strategy, to avoid giving any openings. That is not supposed to be the wiki way, but at least at en:wp, if certain parties, certain (always shifting) factions are involved, it certainly seems to be the way things go, at least some of the time. ++Lar: t/c 16:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And if FT2 had said "oops" honestly and without further evasion, you never would have even heard from me on this. Thatcher 16:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have information about what you're being asked, but you respond with "go ask someone else", you're being deliberately evasive. There is almost never a legitimate reason to be deliberately evasive this way. I think problems are best avoided with an answer more like "Here's what I know about it.. and so-and-so knows even more if you want more." Friday (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What have we learned?

• Be honest.
• Be open.
• Be timely.
• When you make a mistake, say "I'm sorry, I made a mistake. This is what really happened/was said/etc".
• Use short sentences.

Seems to about cover it. DuncanHill (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that should be SOP, now if we can ever get WP:Honesty promoted ot more than an infopage. MBisanz ^talk 16:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is SOP with a lot of people I know on Wikipedia. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at David Gerard's statement and answers. In a few hundred words he managed to acknowledge that he and FT2 had met, that he oversighted the edits and told FT2 about it, and that he realized it was a mistake and had apologized. FT2 took tens of thousands of words to say that he didn't know David and didn't know about the oversights, which may have been truthful only in a narrow legalistic sense and only for certain limited values of the word know. If FT2 had been as simple and straightforward as David, back in early-mid December (2008), he might have had to endure a couple of uncomfortable days as his corrections were scrutinized, but I for one would never have gotten involved, and this thing never would have gotten the traction that it did. Thatcher 11:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hung for being embarrassed, tardy and verbose? I think there are plenty of other reasons this got traction. Thatcher your genuine concern with the proper use of tools is commendable, but there's an elephant in this room. --Scott Mac (Doc) 12:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand FT2's perspective completely. Thatcher. As a blameless, inactive party in this drama, FT2 struggled to emphasize his non-active role. I also feel uncomfortable about the way the community not only let him down, it has actively pursued him and, in doing so, has caused much more damage than the original troll.

To say that FT2 acted wrongly isn't only wrong, it's also looking in the wrong direction. How can we stop this kind of "torches and pitchforks" affair recurring over simple and sensible actions taken to stop trolling? Until we can deal with that, as a community we remain troll-friendly, and a troll-friendly community is an unhappy and unstable one. --TS 12:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that other people have other agendas, but I can only act as I believe the situation requires. I can't say, "Well, Smith wants to hang FT2 for impure motives so I must keep silent to avoid helping Smith" when I feel I have legitimate concerns independent of Smith's grievances. I also know that FT2's position on Arbcom has been challenged from within Arbcom for reasons that have not even been mentioned here. While I probably would not have published my original critique of FT2 two days ago if not for the block by Bishonen, I wasn't going to wait indefinitely either. And I don't get the "embarrassment" angle. FT2 has made (apparently, I did not count) more than a thousand edits to zoophilia and related topics, and he told me once that he stands behind every edit he ever made. So he is seemingly not embarrassed about the edits themselves. Was he embarrassed about being caught in some minor misstatements? Don't we need people in authority to be willing to admit their "oopses" and clean up the mess rather than spin and delay and seek cover? Whenever I found I had made a mistake as a checkuser or admin (whether I found it on my own or was called on it) I tried to fix it as soon as I could no matter how dumb the mistake was. FT2 had found all the necessary information in his own files by December 10 or so to make a statement like, "I know some people won't believe me, and I'm pretty embarrassed by it, but I found some emails I had forgotten about and here is what they said..." That would have ended my involvement before it started. Thatcher 12:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Peter Damian has been "trolling" about this on Wikipedia Review for the past year, one source of his ire was the oversighting of the edits. A simple acknowledgment of David's "oops" would have taken that issue away, and we can only speculate what Damian's behavior would then have been, and how the past year would have played out. Certainly Damian would not have been able to claim abuse of power as a justification for his own behavior. I know that there was no precedent to make this kind of acknowledgment, which is one of the things I hope the Review/Audit panel is willing to do when the situation calls for it in the future. Thatcher 12:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why the oversighting of the edits is an issue? It was an easy enough mistake and no harm was done by it. --TS 12:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the timeline correctly, Peter Damian was blocked for making allegations of inappropriate content editing by FT2 (but had not posted the diffs on-wiki), then apologized and was unblocked. He then posted the allegations on his blog with a diff. Someone reblocked him, and he agreed by email to withdraw the blog post. It was some time (a few hours, I think, or maybe half a day) after he withdrew the blog post that the edits were oversighted. He was asked by email during an unblock discussion to provide the diffs of the alleged bad edits he was complaining about, and discovered they had disappeared. He therefore believed that his block/ban was unfair. He only joined Wikipedia Review after his ban, to complain about how the edits were hidden when he was asked to provide them as evidence. Over the last year Damian has participated in other WR discussions about FT2, some of which were definitely trolling, although most of the worst seem to have been initiated by another banned user. If a simple acknowledgment had been made in December 2007, subsequent events, including his ban/unban requests and participation on WR, might have turned out very differently. It is impossible to say, of course. Thatcher 13:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I have no problem with the oversighting, except that it wasn't sensible during an election, and it should have been explained to Peter Damian so that he wasn't left to flounder around. My objection was only that FT2 didn't tell the truth about it after the fact, when all he had to do was say nothing. Instead, he chose to mislead. That's not acceptable in an arbitrator. I'm surprised to see anyone argue otherwise. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are jerks here (no names) and off site (no names or locations) who have an axe to grind against FT2 (and others) regardless of issue and they happened to find something that stuck. They are dancing on his proverbial grave, and we should all be angry, as Scott seems to be, at that kind of behavior.

Likewise, there are people with legitimate criticisms of FT2 - and how this got handled. They don't want (I hope) to be associated with the first group, and some of them are justifiably angry at being associated with the first group.

There are people with axes to grind against the first group - and they're angry that the first group has "won"

There are are more than a few who are angry that this situation ever happened and just want it to go away.

There are a lot of bystanders who are angry about how much time and energy this intrigue has stolen.

I myself, am no longer angry - I'm just tired.

I'll be blunt here: shit happens and sometimes the terrorists "bad guys" win. Sometimes, rabble rousers and trolls get their kicks in - and they most often do it when kicking at genuine flaws and problems. This whole ordeal is a sad chapter that has yet to be fully closed, but I hope is headed there quickly.--Tznkai (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please reconsider that post Tznkai. Implying that editors are terrorists, rabble rousers and trolls is profoundly unhelpful. DuncanHill (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not wish to imply that any editors or (off siters) are genuine terrorists, but was referring to the Americanism "Otherwise the terrorists will win" (which we used to have an article on I think). I am however, stating there are some people who are rabble rousers and trolls - and that they are grave dancing. Lets not pretend they're not - and likewise lets accept that there are people who had legitimate concerns. A lot of people are angry, and I think its very helpful to point it out and accept it as legitimate anger.--Tznkai (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good analysis, Tznkai. This happens on Wikipedia all the time- people get so busy taking sides that they don't realize that what they perceive as "the other side" is actually made up of individuals with different opinions and different agendas. This whole mess was a great example of how this tendency to take sides makes rational discourse goes out the window. Why are people so into their little cliques? Maybe it's just me, but I got out of high school a long time ago. I have no time for cliques. Friday (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some broadcaster, I think it was Brian Jennings, said at a commencement that with horror, he realized after he left college that real life isn't like college or even high school - its middle school all over again. But yes, I agree. Taking sides is very bad and derails constructive discussions.--Tznkai (talk)

• • • • Tznkai, although the general sentiment is fine, I share the objection to that turn of phrase. Please reconsider. It is no secret that my father's brother survived 9/11 from a high floor. He was one of the last people out of the building. I went to war because of that day. It's not a turn of phrase I'm much familiar with outside of that context, and not a good thing to be devising variants of Godwin's Law. I'd like to get to the bottom of my first cup of coffee in the morning without being reminded of the armed watches I stood at oh-dark-thirty, moored to the pier of a Muslim country while the Abu Ghraib scandal unfolded, wondering how I had signed up for the right reasons and joined the wrong war. Would you consider a strikethrough please? Durova^Charge! 16:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, with apologies. --Tznkai (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 16:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add my thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not good enough. As long as you're still saying the "bad guys" and "rabble rousers" won, you're not allowing the community to heal and in fact rubbing salt in the wounds. I've been watching the unhappiness with FT2 growing for months, as a relative outsider to Wikipedia, and it's been evident throughout that it was his own actions and inactions and obfuscations and delays and misstatements that caused him to lose the community's trust. The loss of trust was broad and cut across factions; I don't see it as coming from outside agitators or rabble rousers as has been alleged here, but truly from a large proportion of editors in good faith and good standing who were concerned about the way FT2 has acted and chosen to explain, or failed to explain, his actions on a broad range of issues (the last straw for me was a revenge block he made last summer, I don't even remember who he blocked or what the issue was, but the way he did it and explained it didn't satisfy me as a kind of attitude I want to see in a person in a position of power). If this is going to be recast as the actions of a few people with axes to grind who got their way and are dancing on his grave, this community will never be able to heal. I haven't been personally involved in any of this, but now, after reading Tznkai's post above, I am profoundly angry. Yes, I believe there had been so much loss of faith in FT2 that his presence on the committee was no longer an asset to the project. That now makes me a rabble rouser or an axe grinder? Please don't diminish or dismiss the genuine concern and loss of trust there has been among just regular people here, who are not aligned with any clique or had any particular axes, but were just alarmed at the behavior they saw in someone in a position of trust. Please have a little more faith in the community. Woonpton (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with Woonpton above. Tznkai's portrayal of those who disagreed with him/her is still unacceptable. What axe have I to grind? What -- other than calling for him to resign straightaway -- have I done that could be called "rabble rousing"? I've seen every bit as much of that from FT2's defenders as from those wanting him to resign. In fact, I've seen more. SDJ 18:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps clarification is needed from some of us who see merit to Tznkai's words. It doesn't look like he's attempting to tar everyone who criticized FT2--more that on the extreme side, ends don't justify means. Durova^Charge! 20:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Likewise, there are people with legitimate criticisms of FT2 - and how this got handled. They don't want (I hope) to be associated with the first group, and some of them are justifiably angry at being associated with the first group." --Tznkai (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but then you canceled that concession out by going back, in the end, to characterizing this broadly as a "win" for terrorists (though you struck that part) rabble rousers and trolls, as if it were impossible to consider that any reasonable person might feel that this was the right thing to happen. I'm sorry, but I'm still offended by that, though I'm not a friend to rabble rousers or trolls, nor am I dancing on anyone's grave.Woonpton (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - they did win. They achieved what they desired. Likewise, those with legitimate criticisms had them aired - but I wouldn't denigrate them with the implication that they've "won" and were therefore game-playing. I make no implications about you in specific, or anyone else: my point is simple: there are many groups, all with their opinions and their anger. Sometimes, the distasteful groups get their kicks in - and sometimes that is a natural result of good (wo)men doing right.--Tznkai (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The stated "desired outcome" of this RfC having been achieved, I feel this RfC is now only going to generate more heat than light, and salt FT2's wonds somewhat if it proceeds further. Any thoughts on archiving this away early? Fritzpoll (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it customary to do this only after people have stopped using it? People are still discussing here. Friday (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally true - just thought I'd throw the idea out there in the interests of getting past this issue now that all is in the open, and FT2 is no longer an Arbitrator. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say give it another half day at least for everyone to log in, catch up, and exhaust their need for closure.--Tznkai (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My primary concern is that the RFC sought an explanation for FT2's actions, not his resignation (see Thatcher's comments for instance), and FT2 maintains there is still an explanation be had, but for some privacy matters. I would find it counter-productive to close the RFC now, only to have a new one filed in some months if Arbcom fails to state publicly the resolution of the privacy matter. MBisanz ^talk 16:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be closed ASAP. There has been some meaningful and constructive talk here today, but much of the talk is either directed against David Gerard or Slim Virgin and this is not an appropriate venue for either. I think it is better to close this matter, and if any unresolved issues remain, they should be dropped too, or pursued through more appropriate venues. There is certainly nothing more to say concerning FT2 besides thanking him for the good work he has done and putting an end to this conflict in an honorable way ... what more could be said specifically about this RfC that would not just be unnecessarily hurtful? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this page has served its purpose. A consensus was demonstrated and an outcome resulted. Any lingering concerns about other parties should be dealt with separately. That said, forcible archiving usually won't stop a discussion. It is better to let people place relevant comments here than to have the discussion spread to additional pages. Jehochman ^Talk 16:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree to a closure. I posted today, but did so unaware of FT2's action because it is barely visible until a reader gets near the bottom of the talk page. GRBerry 16:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should move that to the top of the RfC. Then, if people have nothing further to add as a result, activity here will wane and the discussion can be closed quickly in that fashion. Thoughts? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted to the RFC after the announcement though I hadn't planned to before, because I'm getting the impression that the whole thing is suddenly being cast as the actions of a few rabble rousers stirring up the community with false allegations, and that FT2 is stepping down only until a hearing can be held on the particulars of these allegations. I wanted it on record that my loss of trust in FT2 has little to do with the present allegations but is a culmination of watching his obfuscations, delays and excessive noninformative verbiage over months and many different incidents, and would not be changed by a hearing that exonerates him on this particular incident. As long as people are still posting to the comments, why not allow them to have their say?Woonpton (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I have adjusted my suggestion (incorporating that of others) that we make it plain at the top of the RfC that FT2 has gone (not everyone will know yet), which may precipitate a drop off in activity here. If that drop in activity occurs, then this can be closed like any other RfC. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too, was going to suggest that it be closed, as what was given by the filers as an outcome, has come about.Sticky Parkin 19:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, stepping down from ArbCom is bad enough, let's not make it any worse. I suppose it has to be decided if we do reevaluate the case in the future, however. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One suggestion is that arbcom contine their own investigation into the matter. Then the behaviour of FT and David Gerard etc. and perhaps others could be more broadly considered if that's what people want, as I think they're looking at the thing as a whole (could be wrong.) Sticky Parkin 19:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's much point in that. The episode is one of a minor error by DGerard, who came clean to everyone that it might matter to except Peter D., which then FT2 compounded tremendously by not coming clean when asked directly by saying something like, "oh, yeah....embarassing situation, likely should not have been oversighted but was due to offsite trolling. I really can't say anything more." His other lapses, are fairly minor but compounded by this situation and in fact would not exsist but for the lapses. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never posted a thing to any kind of dispute and never thought I would. I have no opinion on this matter other than to say, would it not be best to drop this for now. FT2 has resigned his position at arbcom and unless people want other sanctions placed on him, and I don't see that anywhere, why not just let it rest for a while to let people get a breath and let them think what more, if anything, should be done. If FT2 now wants to continue editing articles as an editor we should allow him to do so without any distractions. Titch Tucker (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a request that the ArbCom put together a lessons learned report. The oversight issue looks resolved to most people's satisfaction and FT2 has stepped down, but we still don't know whether he was the problem or the fall guy over the Orangemarlin affair. And without that, we don't know how ArbCom got to that point or what it's doing to prevent future problems. This RfC can close, but the questions behind it should and must move forward. The community has done its part; it's ArbCom's turn now. Durova^Charge! 04:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the committee would do well to review the entire set of incidents this past year both those FT2 has been 'blamed' with, and others; and how to prevent/handle these challenges better in the future. I also agree that the additional input from the community is likly to be less helpful for the time being. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I remarked earlier, there is only one lesson to be learned: if questioned about something somebody else did, make absolutely no response except to refer the questioner to the person who performed the action. Anything you do say may be used as the basis for a torches and pitchforks scene at a later point. --TS 19:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've added a hatnote to the top of the RfC referring people FT2's resignation letter, but stating 2 reasons why it hasn't been closed yet: a) the resignation letter left the door open for a possible return and b) other issues have been raised in the process of the RfC, e.g. Durova's concern about the OrangeMarlin case. If the comments continue to decrease in frequency, or FT2 explicitly makes his resignation permanent, then this RfC should be closed early. Cheers, --Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 05:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, this was carried as an item in the Signpost delivered several hours ago. -- Banjeboi 06:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I found out about it, in fact, and why I posted the hatnote instead of just closing it.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 06:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Carcharoth has said: "FT2 has stepped down from the Arbitration Committee. That matter is effectively closed." I have been asked to clarify the status of that resignation and how FT2 might return to the Arbitration Committee. I would like to additionally offer my own recommendations as to how to proceed here.

FT2 has resigned from ArbCom and seems happy to return to the life of an ordinary admin. I think all of us can wish him well in that endeavor.

The desired outcome of this Rfc is "That FT2 resign from the Arbitration Committee." This has been accomplished.

There appear to be some lingering confusions based on some wording in FT2's resignation letter as to whether I might ask for a formal inquiry and then reinstate him to the ArbCom based on that. This is not my intention. My view is that he has resigned, honorably, and that he may run for office again in the future. His current political crisis and unpopularity in some circles might suggest that he ought to wait some time before that, but there is no particular obstacle from him doing that if and when the time is right.

As far as I can see, the facts are all before us, and there seems to me little that ArbCom could do further.

--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, thank you for clarifying this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say, on that note, that we close this RfC and let FT2 get on with his life as an admin. I won't close it myself because I filed it, but if someone else could do it, that would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the RfC. If there are any comments on my summary, please let me know on my talk page.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 19:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]