A conversation with Thatcher that FT2 has now archived. FT2 was complaining that Thatcher had quoted him from the IRC logs out of context. So FT2 supplies 9 lines that preceded it, together with 3 lines that overlap with Thatcher's version.
QUOTE
------------ FT2 version
<FT2-away> but hiding it [i.e., hearing Damian's unban appeal in private]...
<FT2-away> how will that resolve anything?
<thatcher-wiki> you believe that by arguing rationally with an irrational person, you can convince him he is irrational?
<FloNight> We're not hiding it.
<FloNight> We're ignoring it.
<FloNight> Folks like him want a platform
<thatcher-wiki> if his argument is you made naughty edits, then no matter what the article content is, he will claim it is oversighted
<thatcher-wiki> if you grant him oversight access and the edits aren't there, he'll just say a dev removed them
<thatcher-wiki> unless you're prepared to admit to making some naughty edits and unfairly blocking him for trying to point out THE TRUTH, I don't see any other winning strategy
< FT2-away> Ive never made any edit I couldnt stand by
<FT2-away> so thats easy
<FT2-away> unfortunately the oversight log is down -- I ironically checked with brion 3 days ago why, because of another oversight query
------------ Thatcher
QUOTE
2:01pm FT2-away Ive never made any edit I couldnt stand by
2:02pm FT2-away so thats easy
2:02pm FT2-away unfortunately the oversight log is down -- I ironically checked with brion 3 days ago why, because of another oversight query
2:02pm FT2-away he says until they code pagination for it, its limited to 30 days
2:02pm FT2-away so right now o/s cant be looked back before march 2008
2:03pm FT2-away (except by devs)
2:03pm FloNight I was wonder why it only went back 30 days now
2:03pm FloNight Jay asked me about it last week
2:03pm FT2-away its "going to be written"
2:03pm FT2-away why the old one's removed before the new ones coded... ah well
2:05pm FloNight I see
2:05pm FT2-away the oversight thing isnt major
2:06pm FT2-away (I dont think)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FT2...nce_of_IRC_chatFT2 argues as follows
QUOTE
Just look, will you? That discussion wasn't at all about "the oversighted edits". It's not even referring to them. It's discussing Thatcher's concern that Damian might make a spurious claim and my comment that if he did, we couldn't disprove it because the log's down.
FT2 is claiming that the discussion is about what philosophers call a 'counterfactual' - a hypothetical case that has no reference to reality. This makes little sense to me. If anything, FT2's version is more damning. Thatcher says " if his argument is you made naughty edits". Not the subjunctive " if his argument WERE you made naughty edits". But then he says "if you grant him oversight access and the edits aren't there, he'll just say a dev removed them". No subjunctive "if you WERE to grant him access". And he uses the definite article 'the edits'. This sounds entirely like they are discussing not a hypotethetical case, but an actual one. And the 'he'll just say a dev removed them'. No subjunctive, no hypothetical.
[edit] And here is FT2 further up discussing this IRC again.
QUOTE
In the log, Damain's campaign is discussed in general terms. I repeat roughly what was said, and this is not my words but the words of Flonight or Thatcher, or the one speaking and the other tacitly or explicitly agreeing:
Damian's campaign is referred to. It shows clear consensus (with which I agree) that nobody credible takes any of it as more than a momentary reference to a banned user's latest fantasy, one of many.
Thatcher mentions "the edits" (no detail) that were oversighted, in the context of being yet another fabrication (link). He never says much more, the nature of "the edits" is not discussed nor their mythological status questioned. Both make clear by their conduct, they hold this belief.
To underline this, the point is then made that whatever is said, it would be claimed evidence was removed; if not in the oversight log then clearly a developer deleted it, or it has been faked.
The dialog then moves on back to handling of the appeal and my actual concerns, the neutrality of Damian's appeal.
This makes it absolutely clear that this was not a hypothetical example, but a reference to edits that Thatcher and Flo believe have been oversighted. (Note according to Thatcher's claim, he knew about the oversights at the time they happened, because he read my blog post). "Both make clear by their conduct, they hold this belief" that the edits were oversighted.
The subsequent conversation makes it clear they are discussing what to do about this.
Also, this whole episode now proves what I long suspected. I was unblocked in April without appeal (to my surprise). I surmised then that they had gone through the possibilities above (as I had) and come to the conclusion that the only safe way out was to unblock me unconditionally (on 2 May actually) in the hope that I would keep quiet.
[edit] What is astounding is (1) just how bad a liar FT2 is. Liars need a very good memory. (2) The gullibility of the many people who believed him for so long.
This post has been edited by Peter Damian: 
Bishonen indef-blocks FT2, Holy crap, he hasn't been desysopped by Jimbo
