Soooo much
butt-snorkeling......
QUOTE
<-I tend to agree with Nathan here. Sam is a prime example of someone who learned from his earlier mistakes and made a fresh start. While, in hindsight, it has the appearance of impropriety, I don't believe it was done in bad faith. I also don't believe that an investigation of Sam's conduct toward those involved in Fys's desysoping & blocks (the investigation does need to happen) will turn up any bad faith actions. --Versageek 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
QUOTE
(â†) There is absolutely no reason for desysoping Sam at all. — Aitias // discussion 21:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
QUOTE
I'm going to go on the record here to state, without hesitation, that no such thing should take place. While Sam definitely should have made this disclosure earlier, and that it is almost certain that his probabilities of having been elected would have been significantly affected if that information was known before he had a seat, those votes were made while he was an arbitrator in good standing. There are a number of things Sam should have done, but there is no suggestion that he has not acted as an arbitrator with diligence and neutrality during his tenure— or that his votes have suddenly retroactively become invalid.
This new information means that his continued presence on the committee is not appropriate— not that he has become an unperson and that every trace of the past two years need to be "undone".
If anything, Sam is an illustration that it is possible to turn over a new leaf from a bad start on Wikipedia to become a respected and productive member of the community. I agree that he went about it the wrong way, but not that his past behavior is suddenly false. — Coren (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
And Ottava still deserves to be castrated..... (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)