FT2 back in the ArbCom race, with lots to say about the happenings of 2008 Options

[Alison]

Heyyaz,

Looks like FT2 has put his name forward again. And he's got quite a lot of interesting things to say, including more on PoetHorde, certain alternate accounts and more on stuff that happened behind the scenes back in 2008.

Edit: And including about those 'oversighted edits' and the OrangeMarlin affair.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif)

[powercorrupts]

Heyyaz,

Looks like FT2 has put his name forward again. And he's got quite a lot of interesting things to say, including more on PoetHorde, certain alternate accounts and more on stuff that happened behind the scenes back in 2008.

Edit: And including about those 'oversighted edits' and the OrangeMarlin affair.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif)

Pop one:

Mobster boss OrangeMarlin is/was a cunt.

Pop two:

So is commissioner Jpgordon.

Funny how OM suddenly vanished without trace when the recession hit. I guess that's what happens when you now make your money supplying the medical profession. (talking about off-Wiki accounts).

[GlassBeadGame]

What does he have to say concerning his views on bestiality as a healthy form of sexual expression and his desire to make WP a resource that will provide young people with "issues" on the matter with a resource that will give them support and encouragement if they are considering having sex with animals?

[Obesity]

What does he have to say concerning his views on bestiality as a healthy form of sexual expression and his desire to make WP a resource that will provide young people with "issues" on the matter with a resource that will give them support and encouragement if they are considering having sex with animals?

why don't u ask him? you can submit your own questions to ArbCom candidates, you know.

are you afraid he'll post a 3,000 word, rambling and inpenetrable response that doesn't really answer the question?

[Ottava]

What does he have to say concerning his views on bestiality as a healthy form of sexual expression and his desire to make WP a resource that will provide young people with "issues" on the matter with a resource that will give them support and encouragement if they are considering having sex with animals?

why don't u ask him? you can submit your own questions to ArbCom candidates, you know.

are you afraid he'll post a 3,000 word, rambling and inpenetrable response that doesn't really answer the question?

I asked him directly at least 12 times if he thought Pedophiles had the "right" to edit WMF projects. He never answered.

How about someone asking him that for his ArbCom bid, especially seeing ArbCom's anti pedophile stance?

[GlassBeadGame]

What does he have to say concerning his views on bestiality as a healthy form of sexual expression and his desire to make WP a resource that will provide young people with "issues" on the matter with a resource that will give them support and encouragement if they are considering having sex with animals?

why don't u ask him? you can submit your own questions to ArbCom candidates, you know.

are you afraid he'll post a 3,000 word, rambling and inpenetrable response that doesn't really answer the question?

I asked him directly at least 12 times if he thought Pedophiles had the "right" to edit WMF projects. He never answered.

How about someone asking him that for his ArbCom bid, especially seeing ArbCom's anti pedophile stance?

You will get at his libertarian extremism via his views on bestiality on which he has a demonstrated record even without leaving WR. This ought to be sufficient to thwart his "election" without giving him the chance to take advantage of his lack of a record (AFAIK) on pedophilia. I think you can extrapolate for yourself where his "going bravely where no man has gone before" on the frontiers of human sexuality might take him on that issue, too. Of course this is Wikipedia where bizarre and repulsive views might be tolerated to an extent unimaginable elsewhere.

[EricBarbour]

(IMG:http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj408/kamaze144/ft2catlove.jpg)

[Cla68]

Heyyaz,

Looks like FT2 has put his name forward again. And he's got quite a lot of interesting things to say, including more on PoetHorde, certain alternate accounts and more on stuff that happened behind the scenes back in 2008.

Edit: And including about those 'oversighted edits' and the OrangeMarlin affair.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif)

Pop one:

Mobster boss OrangeMarlin is/was a cunt.

Pop two:

So is commissioner Jpgordon.

Funny how OM suddenly vanished without trace when the recession hit. I guess that's what happens when you now make your money supplying the medical profession. (talking about off-Wiki accounts).

From what I've heard, OM did not vanish without a trace. Like several of the editors involved with the Intelligent Design episode, he apparently changed his account name in an attempt to escape the stigma of having been a member of the notorious "ID Cab", one of the most bullying and facist cabals ever to disgrace Wikipedia with its presence.　　He appears to have been successful to some extent, because I haven't see his new account name revealed here on WR yet, and I don't know what it is.

Anyway, all questions of FT2's idealogical philosophies aside, he really, really needs to work on using the English language in a concise manner to explain his ideas. Until he does that, he really shouldn't be running for ArbCom. FT2, I know you're reading this. Practice being short and concise. YOU CAN DO IT.

[Gruntled]

Heyyaz,

Looks like FT2 has put his name forward again.

Will Alison or someone else ask each of the other Arbcom candidates if they would be happy to serve alongside FT2? And would those candidates who have accounts here like to answer that?

[Mathsci]

Anyway, all questions of FT2's idealogical philosophies aside, he really, really needs to work on using the English language in a concise manner to explain his ideas. Until he does that, he really shouldn't be running for ArbCom. FT2, I know you're reading this. Practice being short and concise. YOU CAN DO IT.

At the moment his lengthy "extended statement" seems like a way of burying facts if they are there at all.

[powercorrupts]

Heyyaz,

Looks like FT2 has put his name forward again. And he's got quite a lot of interesting things to say, including more on PoetHorde, certain alternate accounts and more on stuff that happened behind the scenes back in 2008.

Edit: And including about those 'oversighted edits' and the OrangeMarlin affair.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif)

Pop one:

Mobster boss OrangeMarlin is/was a cunt.

Pop two:

So is commissioner Jpgordon.

Funny how OM suddenly vanished without trace when the recession hit. I guess that's what happens when you now make your money supplying the medical profession. (talking about off-Wiki accounts).

From what I've heard, OM did not vanish without a trace. Like several of the editors involved with the Intelligent Design episode, he apparently changed his account name in an attempt to escape the stigma of having been a member of the notorious "ID Cab", one of the most bullying and facist cabals ever to disgrace Wikipedia with its presence.　　He appears to have been successful to some extent, because I haven't see his new account name revealed here on WR yet, and I don't know what it is.

Anyway, all questions of FT2's idealogical philosophies aside, he really, really needs to work on using the English language in a concise manner to explain his ideas. Until he does that, he really shouldn't be running for ArbCom. FT2, I know you're reading this. Practice being short and concise. YOU CAN DO IT.

I agree with that. It's most important to be as unambiguous as possible of course, but there is so much to read on Wikipedia that being relatively concise is an invaluable skill, and one worth the self-training (although self-editing has its notorious pitfalls). Unless blustering is your thing (or the thing) I suppose.

Re OrangeMarlin:

So it was a 'Right to vanish' without disclosure? I wonder where you heard that. There really are no proper rules on Wikipedia are there. It's simply about whether you are likely to get blocked or not, and how long it will last if you do.

OM is such a naturally aggressive man, his new identity should stand out like a sore thumb. Unless he's being extremely careful I suppose. What he would love to be is an admin - so maybe that ambition is keeping him in check.

The OM/ FT2 thing was a typical battle of wiki armies. It's why they both came out pretty untarnished from it if I remember (I read up on it all after the event). OM in his newly protected state did very well out of it - it was a ticket to be as abusive as he pretty much liked, with his kiss-arse 'mentors' winging-in immediately if fool from the 'ignorant masses' had the gall to stand up to his 'personality'. It's the people who don't (or won't) support-build on WP that really have to worry about their actions.

There is a triple threat that stops Wikipedia being a reasonable and objective encyclopedia: desire, ability and structure (primarily being the style guides, and those who control them). OM had serious issues with all three, and when he was involved in the abuse of them it was always to remove stuff he simply didn't want to see on Wikipedia at all. In a sense, the Civility thing worked like a smoke-screen. It's that over-used label again, 'great content editor with civility issues', as if the two somehow 'naturally' come together. Those 'anti heroes' are always guns ablazing on that infernal Featured Article machine too.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[Peter Damian]

Interesting there is no mention of the User:TBP account in his disclosure here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/ACE2...ended_statement

The TBP thread is here http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&p=99940

Regarding TBP, the preponderence of evidence indicates that it is FT2 and he used it to game an edit war on NLP. Though the TBP account has only 185 edits, it's intersected with FT2 on these 22 pages
1. Animal_cognition
2. Animal_loss
3. Animal_love
4. Death
5. Edgeplay
6. Emotion_in_animals
7. Enumclaw,_Washington
8. Ethology
9. Great_ape_personhood
10. Hani_Miletski
11. Kenneth_Pinyan
12. List_of_unusual_deaths
13. Loss
14. Mr_Hands
15. Neuro-linguistic_programming
16. Rainbow_Bridge_(pets)
17. Zoophilia
18. Zoosadism
19. Zoosexuality
20. Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming
21. Talk:Zoophilia
22. Category:Zoosexuality
FT2 tacitly admits it's his sock on his user page. He brags

Created (or effectively rewritten) from scratch: [ ... ]Hani Miletski ... Kenneth Pinyan [ ... ]

. Both were created and substantially written by TBP, with only minor input from the FT2 account.

Between 17 October 2005 and 16 May 2006 the sockpuppet TBP made 185 edits, all in relation to animals, sex, animal sex or Neuro-linguistic programming. There is perhaps only one other editor on enwiki with similar tastes.

TBP's career highlights -
Started the article on Kenneth Pinyan, AKA Mr Hands, a man notable for dying in an unusual way.

Started the article on Hani Miletski, a pioneer in the study of beastiality.

Started the article on Emotion in animals.

Edited the article Edgeplay. Later, FT2 consulted current persona non grata Taxwoman on the subject.

Edit warred on Neuro-linguistic programming and sparred with HeadleyDown on Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming.

HeadleyDown. I trained in NLP under John Seymour and Joseph O'Connor, the first two major UK trainers, in NLP, in 1990. I worked on NLP training courses 1991 - 1997. I trained for what is called the "Master Practitioner" under Robert Dilts and Judith Delozier in 1998, in Stanta Cruz, where NLP all began. And I had to look up what an engram was, because despite nearly 10 years training under several world-class NLP trainers, I had never heard the term or seen that viewpoint. Core NLP is not concerned with the biological mechanism of memory, but how it subjectively, functionally, works and can be worked with. This conflicts disturbingly with the above comment as to what is "core NLP". TBP 11:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This eventually lead to FT2 filing Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming. FT2 actually brings up and dismisses the sock's involvement.

One editor, User:TBP, was explicitly self-identified as a sock puppet on his talk page before becoming involved in this article Oct 17 DIFF. He played no part in the vote or its discussion, and only a minor role in the talk page debate, mostly between Oct 27-29.

TBP quits editing 31 days before FT2's failed self-nomination for adminship. For his second, successful candidacy, he was nominated by jossi.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[trenton]

Anyway, all questions of FT2's idealogical philosophies aside, he really, really needs to work on using the English language in a concise manner to explain his ideas. Until he does that, he really shouldn't be running for ArbCom. FT2, I know you're reading this. Practice being short and concise. YOU CAN DO IT.

I wonder.... if brevity is the soul of wit, does the inverse hold true?

[Peter Damian]

Vandenburg getting into a scrap with him now.

You have forgotten your lies, despite me confronting you about this on the arbcom mailing list just prior to your resignation, and then again privately, where you gave me an answer? John Vandenberg (chat) 05:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...s/FT2/Questions

Does anyone have any idea what this is about?

you only need to refer the discussion we had on Jan 7, 2009; the one I sent to you earlier, and also to Arbcom. There you describe your reasons for having provided the wrong information on Arbcom Wiki, only one of which was the "I live in this timezone, but I think in this other timezone" you are giving here. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2010/Candidates/FT2/Questions"

What is all this?

[cyofee]

FT2 is an early riser?

[Ottava]

Vandenburg getting into a scrap with him now.

...

What is all this?

100% respectable and non-abusive nor controversial ex-Arb Sam Blacketer enters for then win. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Peter Damian]

All explained. See below.

I have looked over the discussion and can only say that the issue of accuracy of information concerning the timezone FT2 was in was not a big issue at the time. In fact it would be a strain to say it was any sort of issue at the time. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The committee had asked for FT2 to provide a brief relating to the oversight problem 11 days previously, and we were getting very impatient by Jan 7, especially as two committee members had publicly committed that we would ensure the questions were answered.[1] We were prodding him every few days. On Jan 6 he said we would have it by "tomorrow morning".
The cited email was from myself to the committee, informing him that "tomorrow morning" had passed in his actual timezone, and asking him "is that the timezone you are in right now?" I thought that question was clear enough to avoid ambiguous answers. His response to the arbitrators did not answer my question about his actual timezone; instead he included more times and temporal references, again in a timezone other than his own, one being an indication that he would be sending the brief to the committee much later in the day. He then privately provided the brief to me within 30 minutes, and privately explained that his reason for having given a time to the committee in the wrong timezone was deception. It may not have been a big issue for you, but he thought it was important enough to deceive the committee even after I had made a point of having this ambiguity removed from the deadline.
IIRC, some arbs did not immediately provide details on the ArbCom Wiki page, as they were still considering what they would disclose to each other. Better to say nothing than tell a lie.
And when I raise this now, he accuses me via email of erroneous 'sleuthing'. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2010/Candidates/FT2/Questions"

[dogbiscuit]

FT2 once explained that it took him a long time to craft his answers because he was fearful of misinterpretations. His longwinded responses were no more helpful in that regard as far as I could see.

His inability to communicate concisely and unambiguously are of themselves reasons why he is unsuited to be in any position of authority or judgement.

[Peter Damian]

FT2 once explained that it took him a long time to craft his answers because he was fearful of misinterpretations. His longwinded responses were no more helpful in that regard as far as I could see.

His inability to communicate concisely and unambiguously are of themselves reasons why he is unsuited to be in any position of authority or judgement.

I think the inability is more explained by this.

Bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant. Frankfurt concludes that although bullshit can take many innocent forms, excessive indulgence in it can eventually undermine the practitioner's capacity to tell the truth in a way that lying does not. Liars at least acknowledge that it matters what is true. By virtue of this, Frankfurt writes, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[trenton]

None of his colleagues at the arbcom really seem to like him very much. JV calls him a liar, and the Wizardboy doesn't seem to care for him much either, going by his election guide.

I do hope he gets elected. The drama quotient has been getting rather low lately.

[Peter Damian]

None of his colleagues at the arbcom really seem to like him very much. JV calls him a liar, and the Wizardboy doesn't seem to care for him much either, going by his election guide.

I do hope he gets elected. The drama quotient has been getting rather low lately.

Unfortunately the ballot seems to be secret this year, so we are missing the usual jockeying and tactical voting and drama. Hopefully that will change when it is announced.

My 'winning team' is FT2, Giano, Sandstein, Off2RioRob and Harej.

[powercorrupts]

None of his colleagues at the arbcom really seem to like him very much. JV calls him a liar, and the Wizardboy doesn't seem to care for him much either, going by his election guide.

I do hope he gets elected. The drama quotient has been getting rather low lately.

Unfortunately the ballot seems to be secret this year, so we are missing the usual jockeying and tactical voting and drama. Hopefully that will change when it is announced.

My 'winning team' is FT2, Giano, Sandstein, Off2RioRob and Harej.

Yeah, God help us all.

But maybe a terrible group will work out for the best. The shocking status quo of bad administership (for example) ---brickwall----rfc/u----brickwall-----------------------------arbcom may not be able to survive it. Something may actually give somewhere.

I'm not sure it's been expressed in this thread, but Off2RioRob, although a natural-born kiss-ass (between appearing 'tough' via the typical teenage snotty rudeness), is not - and genuinely never would be able to be - an admin. His block log is far too big and he can't keep it empty, and he has made too-many fair-minded editor enemies - ie he has made the mistake of making himself unpopular before becoming an admin, and not afterwards when you can do and say what you like.

How can they have a system where a nominee can bypass adminship via a secret ballot at arbcom level? Nobody seems to care what mediation experience there is in off2riorob's case, which only betrays what most of them really feel about the job.

The whole candidature process is atrocious - it's far worse than the less-than-ideal Request for Adminship, and these people are supposed to be the bottom line on difficult issues - although nothing but stupid hyper-dramas ever actually get up to their marble floor, admittedly.

They are basically hiring the new cast of Wikipedia Dynasty.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[Peter Damian]

But maybe a terrible group will work out for the best.

What I am hearing through various channels is that this election will make or break Wikipedia.

[BelovedFox]

But maybe a terrible group will work out for the best.

What I am hearing through various channels is that this election will make or break Wikipedia.

Everyone is gonna' say that. The vast majority of editors don't care, because ArbCom doesn't affect them. Not a single article I have ever edited has been remotely connected with an ArbCom case, for example.

[Theanima]

But maybe a terrible group will work out for the best.

What I am hearing through various channels is that this election will make or break Wikipedia.

Everyone is gonna' say that. The vast majority of editors don't care, because ArbCom doesn't affect them. Not a single article I have ever edited has been remotely connected with an ArbCom case, for example.

Very true. Arbcom is highly over-rated. Honestly, I can't believe how much some people give a damn about nothing.

[BelovedFox]

But maybe a terrible group will work out for the best.

What I am hearing through various channels is that this election will make or break Wikipedia.

Everyone is gonna' say that. The vast majority of editors don't care, because ArbCom doesn't affect them. Not a single article I have ever edited has been remotely connected with an ArbCom case, for example.

Very true. Arbcom is highly over-rated. Honestly, I can't believe how much some people give a damn about nothing.

Well, something like ArbCom is necessary for some fields, but for a great many of them--roads, film, video games, counties, education, meteorology, paleontology, on and on--regular dispute resolution works just fine. It's not surprising a comparatively small portion of editors bother voting.

[SB_Johnny]

What I am hearing through various channels is that this election will make or break Wikipedia.

913 channels of bullshit to choose from?

[EricBarbour]

My 'winning team' is FT2, Giano, Sandstein, Off2RioRob and Harej.

You are one sick bastard. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[tarantino]

lol, wikipedia is where anyone can wander in off the internet and make up some plausible sounding user name, do a bunch of busy work for a couple of months and then play like they are managing an encyclopedia.

This message has been posted to both involved parties' talk pages in identical form. Please discuss this further at the coordination talk page, rather than on your individual pages.

Let me make this very clear. This has to stop, if not because it reflects poorly on the two of you, if not because it reflects poorly on the elections, but at the very least because it is, at this point, disruptive. You are bickering over information that the public can not see, and accusations are being traded that can not be verified by the community at large. At this point, the damage is limited, and both of you have much more to gain by shaking hands and moving on. If there is a real concern here, it should be brought to ArbCom in private. If this is only posturing, it has to end. This is neither the time nor the place for this concern to be voiced, and while I do not have the authority to compel you to stop, I would kindly ask (in the strongest possible way) that it does.

Thank you, Sven Manguard Talk 05:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

[EricBarbour]

lol, wikipedia is where anyone can wander in off the internet and make up some plausible sounding user name, do a bunch of busy work for a couple of months and then play like they are managing an encyclopedia.

That guy stinks of gaming-the-system-for-power.

Obviously an experienced user, 7,000 edits in the first 2 months (343 edits just yesterday),
almost no useful factual edits, generates lots of dramah, pwns Wikiproject East Asia,
and hands out barnstars to an IP address.
Whatta freak. I smell a sock of someone caballish.
(not that anyone cares, of course. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif) )

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[TungstenCarbide]

lol, wikipedia is where anyone can wander in off the internet and make up some plausible sounding user name, do a bunch of busy work for a couple of months and then play like they are managing an encyclopedia.

... Obviously an experienced user, 7,000 edits in the first 2 months ...

Obviously an insane user.

[Peter Damian]

Well we finally have an explanation of the TBP account from FT2. FT2 drafted the article on Hani Miletski, emailed it to TBP, who then posted it. That is why FT2 claimed the article as his own.

Thank you for the response. Could you say what you meant when you said you had written those articles from scratch? Looking at Hani Miletski, the current article doesn't differ much from the one started and written by TBP. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

After more than 4 years, specific details about this article or stub and how it was created or co-edited across email and wiki (and maybe other means, can't remember for sure but we never did voice and I probably wasn't on irc) are completely unmemorable. With the caveat that it's a guess, from the page history I would have copyedited a draft short article or long stub, he would have discussed it or maybe just said nothing and used it, then either added other stuff as I fielded email questions or did extra research after sending the first draft and sent extra emails, and such. That makes most sense. The history suggests he got a draft (or a rewrite of his draft or notes, there could have been prior email dialog) from me, then a bunch of extra copyedit suggestions filtering through one at a time in the space of 30 minutes, suggesting I was still looking up or reviewing stuff, then there's a 50 minute pause, then I added a few others. I think what that means is, after sending him a written or copyedited version he posted it on-wiki (with or without some edits), I then emailed him copyedits or extra information (there wasn't time for much discussion judging by the timing in history). After that he probably went offline or I did. I probably came back, re-read it and found more improvements and posted them myself. On collating examples of content work I'd done for RFA, I listed it as an example of a page effectively written from scratch, suggesting it was more likely my draft or a draft based on notes rather than a copyedit. But I emphasize that's a guess, I'm interpreting a very old page history based on impressions and how it apparently went. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

[CharlotteWebb]

lol, wikipedia is where anyone can wander in off the internet and make up some plausible sounding user name

Mangaard would have been plausible as a (reasonably common) Scandihoovian surname, but Manguard is right out.

Moreover any candidate with more user-talk edits than article edits should be disqualified summarily.

Well we finally have an explanation of the TBP account from FT2. FT2 drafted the article on Hani Miletski, emailed it to TBP, who then posted it. That is why FT2 claimed the article as his own.

Thank you for the response. Could you say what you meant when you said you had written those articles from scratch? Looking at Hani Miletski, the current article doesn't differ much from the one started and written by TBP. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

After more than 4 years, specific details about this article or stub and how it was created or co-edited across email and wiki (and maybe other means, can't remember for sure but we never did voice and I probably wasn't on irc) are completely unmemorable. With the caveat that it's a guess, from the page history I would have copyedited a draft short article or long stub, he would have discussed it or maybe just said nothing and used it, then either added other stuff as I fielded email questions or did extra research after sending the first draft and sent extra emails, and such. That makes most sense. The history suggests he got a draft (or a rewrite of his draft or notes, there could have been prior email dialog) from me, then a bunch of extra copyedit suggestions filtering through one at a time in the space of 30 minutes, suggesting I was still looking up or reviewing stuff, then there's a 50 minute pause, then I added a few others. I think what that means is, after sending him a written or copyedited version he posted it on-wiki (with or without some edits), I then emailed him copyedits or extra information (there wasn't time for much discussion judging by the timing in history). After that he probably went offline or I did. I probably came back, re-read it and found more improvements and posted them myself. On collating examples of content work I'd done for RFA, I listed it as an example of a page effectively written from scratch, suggesting it was more likely my draft or a draft based on notes rather than a copyedit. But I emphasize that's a guess, I'm interpreting a very old page history based on impressions and how it apparently went. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Except, this "explanation" is bull to the power of shit, and everyone knows it.

[Peter Damian]

Except, this "explanation" is bull to the power of shit, and everyone knows it.

No I think most people accept it.

[dogbiscuit]

Except, this "explanation" is bull to the power of shit, and everyone knows it.

No I think most people accept it.

I simply don't believe that, once people have clues to remind them, that they don't remember what went on. A classic FT2 answer which puts in masses of detail and becomes less convincing rather than more.

Wouldn't it have been more convincing to say "I don't remember the exact details as it was a long time ago, but I think between us we drafted an article offline before it was posted, then tweaked it." He either worked in this style a few times, hence it was an unmemorable incident - and he could point to other examples; or it was unusual, and therefore it would be unconvincing for this to be forgotten. It is also less convincing because this was about an article he claimed authorship of so at some point he did remember writing it.

Selective memory is not a good trait for someone sitting in judgement.

[CharlotteWebb]

Everyone is gonna' say that. The vast majority of editors don't care, because ArbCom doesn't affect them. Not a single article I have ever edited has been remotely connected with an ArbCom case, for example.

I've edited several such articles without actually meaning to, so that seems nearly as dubious as Zoloft's "I've never been reverted (!)" claim. Check again.

Except, this "explanation" is bull to the power of shit, and everyone knows it.

No I think most people accept it.

It's possible "most people" (given the benefit of secret balloting) have chosen to smile and nod in hopes that FT2 will shut the fuck up already.

[Peter Damian]

Except, this "explanation" is bull to the power of shit, and everyone knows it.

No I think most people accept it.

I simply don't believe that, once people have clues to remind them, that they don't remember what went on. A classic FT2 answer which puts in masses of detail and becomes less convincing rather than more.

Wouldn't it have been more convincing to say "I don't remember the exact details as it was a long time ago, but I think between us we drafted an article offline before it was posted, then tweaked it." He either worked in this style a few times, hence it was an unmemorable incident - and he could point to other examples; or it was unusual, and therefore it would be unconvincing for this to be forgotten. It is also less convincing because this was about an article he claimed authorship of so at some point he did remember writing it.

Selective memory is not a good trait for someone sitting in judgement.

It's not convincing to regulars here, but I think it's convincing to many Wikipedians.

I like the way he thought of the story about sending a full version by email. Then he obviously realised that this wouldn't do, because TBP actually adds a significant chunk http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=52708575 8 minutes into the edit. So in his explanation FT2 adds details like "I then emailed him copyedits or extra information".

It's patent nonsense, but clearly most Wikipedians are taken in by it, or he wouldn't have survived so long.

[Zoloft]

I've edited several such articles without actually meaning to, so that seems nearly as dubious as Zoloft's "I've never been reverted (!)" claim. Check again.

Is there some database tool where I can check to see if any of my edits were reverted?

Seems to me that if I've never been warned, I'm fairly vanilla. I do remember making spelling/grammar fixes to Liancourt Rocks (T-H-L-K-D), and nobody cared.

My deleted edits are in articles that went through AfDs and were zapped.

[The Adversary]

lol, wikipedia is where anyone can wander in off the internet and make up some plausible sounding user name

Mangaard would have been plausible as a (reasonably common) Scandihoovian surname, but Manguard is right out.

"Manguard" is about as Scandinavian as ......"Kristen" is a girls name. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

As for the Hani Miletski-article; why, oh why do you ever make a draft of an article...and then email it, (out of view) to another user to post??

In my wp-history I only know of (or rather; suspect!) one other case: user A (already known as a harasser of his enemies on wp, having published attacks-articles on them...and being under special "watch" due to this..)...emails editor B (known to share A's strong political views) ....just afterwards B then publish a BLP of one of A's strongest opponents on wp. (This was the only BLP that editor B ever wrote..)

Hmm. Fishy. Stinks.

(And I say this, having found that cooperating with other similar-minded editors on articles is one of the most fun thing there is. But, if you have nothing to hide; you make a sub-page on wp, and start working. Or did wp ever charge you for making draft-pages??)

[RMHED]

lol, wikipedia is where anyone can wander in off the internet and make up some plausible sounding user name, do a bunch of busy work for a couple of months and then play like they are managing an encyclopedia.

This message has been posted to both involved parties' talk pages in identical form. Please discuss this further at the coordination talk page, rather than on your individual pages.

Let me make this very clear. This has to stop, if not because it reflects poorly on the two of you, if not because it reflects poorly on the elections, but at the very least because it is, at this point, disruptive. You are bickering over information that the public can not see, and accusations are being traded that can not be verified by the community at large. At this point, the damage is limited, and both of you have much more to gain by shaking hands and moving on. If there is a real concern here, it should be brought to ArbCom in private. If this is only posturing, it has to end. This is neither the time nor the place for this concern to be voiced, and while I do not have the authority to compel you to stop, I would kindly ask (in the strongest possible way) that it does.

Thank you, Sven Manguard Talk 05:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Sven is a bit of a pompous twat . Clearly an experienced user, most likely a sock of a banned or indef blocked user. I've got my suspicions as to who they are, but really if they're seeking to be an admin they're just trying too hard and any RfA will likely go down in flames.

[dogbiscuit]

Yes, Sven is a bit of a pompous twat . Clearly an experienced user, most likely a sock of a banned or indef blocked user. I've got my suspicions as to who they are, but really if they're seeking to be an admin they're just trying too hard and any RfA will likely go down in flames.

Reminds me of the pomposity of Durova, not blocked or banned, just vanished.

[Gruntled]

Vandenburg getting into a scrap with him now.

You have forgotten your lies, despite me confronting you about this on the arbcom mailing list just prior to your resignation, and then again privately, where you gave me an answer? John Vandenberg (chat) 05:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...s/FT2/Questions

Does anyone have any idea what this is about?

I would guess that it's about the reasons why FT2 had to retire from ArbCom, and then had to retire from being a checkuser. By the way, has anyone noticed that this interesting discussion has mysteriously been moved to the talk page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=399114766

[GlassBeadGame]

FT2 is an early riser?

Well, I suspect he would get up with the chickens and other farm animals.

[EricBarbour]

FT2 is an early riser?

Well, I suspect he would get up with the chickens and other farm animals.

And where did your morning omelet come from? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

[Peter Damian]

Vandenburg is certainly going for it, but I'm not sure where it is going.

It was only two years ago, rather than three as you state above. And I am surprised you've forgotten so quickly. I know when I lie, it all comes back to me when something related crops up or when I am confronted, and I get a sinking feeling in my gut. That is a decision point: come clean or add to the pile of lies.

Since you have raised our discussion on IRC, you asked me to email you the "data" because you can't comment without "data", to which I replied "don't lie mate; I will rip you another new one" and told the concerned admins listening in that "[asking on IRC] is an attempt to pretend that he cant answer the question in front of the admins on IRC". Yes, I can be a mongrel when someone is being dishonest. You selected this venue. Intentional or not, you chose to put ArbCom in a position where their hands were tied, so they couldn't interfere with your plans to get back onto ArbCom. If you had provided timely answers to ArbCom in Jan 2009, had informed the committee of your real timezone back then when asked, or had provided a thoughtful answer to my public question yesterday, you would not have such a gut ache now. If you don't like this question, I have others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=399278131

Nuclear Warfare has also spotted some of the glaring inconsistencies. That will get him nowhere: it's clear that the Wikipedians don't follow any links to any kind of evidence, and if you say what the evidence implies, you will be banned for incivility. No decently functioning system would allow a culture that accepts lying on this scale and blatancy. But Wikipedia is not a decently functioning system, I know ...

I spent some time today rereading the OrangeMarlin and Oversighted edits debacle of late 2007-early 2009. One thing that confused me was Thatcher's statement in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FT2 ("FT2, FloNight and I also discussed the issue of the oversighted edits in an IRC chat on April 24, 2008. Arbcom has the log. Thatcher 19:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)"). That seemingly contradicts your extended statement and previous posts you made, which indicate that you were unaware of any such oversighted edits (although I can think of a number of things that would explain the situation). Could you clarify please? NW (Talk) 22:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I have a fair memory on it. The machine I need to check it for certain is briefly inaccessible - I should have access back shortly if all's well. Taking note of the query I'll do what I can to make that sooner than later. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[powercorrupts]

But maybe a terrible group will work out for the best.

What I am hearing through various channels is that this election will make or break Wikipedia.

I just can't see anything radical on offer at all - it's almost totally conservative. What could happen that is different this year?

There are 12 places and only 20 candidates to choose from (excluding Loosmark, although it looks like people can continue to vote for him - what an extra farce he's helped make it). Filling12 places from only 20 candidates is a gross lack of choice - Ideally you want at least a few choices per space, all properly checked for sock integrity beforehand.

[Kelly Martin]

What I am hearing through various channels is that this election will make or break Wikipedia.

I can't imagine how.

[Peter Damian]

John Vandenberg again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FT2#Query

* On April 21 (F43A818E433D44648BB0569FDCB686CB), the banned user emails Arbcom with a link which includes a crat saying publicly that they are emailing the details to the [Wikimedia] Foundation for review.
* On April 22 (480dbb5d.1f15300a.0410.01b4), FT2 provides Arbcom with a summary of the user in question, leaving out many specifics that I know he knew back in December 2007.
* On April 22 (54ADCFC31B35499C86E666B5197CB5D0), the banned user emailed Arbcom, forwarding their email from 8 December 2007 which contained all the details necessary to find these edits, being the first two edits FT2 ever made. FT2 claims to have forgotten that he started Wikipedia on the article Zoophilia. Even if he had forgotten, these emails were a reminder. The original email had been sent to two 'crats in December 2007. Jimmy Wales has also been sent these emails between December and April; I don't know whether they were received or not.
* On April 24, there were a few arbitrator comments in a separate thread. MessageID 16032ea0804241712n3ee276cayd178991b1e0df657 shows that the problem was properly understood. At this stage, FT2 (48111d14.04eb300a.328e.097f) is still participating in the relevant discussions.
* On April 25 (86CD3F11-2D27-44EC-A05E-3107DCA4965E), an arbitrator responded to the banned user, indicating that the committee would discuss the matter, and proceeded to start the arbcom discussion.
* On April 25 (481265c7.2435440a.29eb.0c79), FT2 gave the arbs a brain dump of how he thought the arbs should handle the matter, whilst also indicating that he knew he was considered involved. Another arb promptly told him to keep his opinions to himself. FT2 respond acknowledging that his comments are as a party rather than as an arbitrator.

FT2 claims that he did not read the emails because they were 'filtered'. But then if he hadn't read them, how was it he replied On April 22 with details of what he knew about the 'banned user'? If he was still participating in relevant discussion later (48111d14.04eb300a.328e.097f) how can he claim he wasn't involved.

The issue is not the lies, but the fact that he seems to accept that telling lies like this will not be challenged. Lying is part of the culture of Arbcom, one suspects.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Kelly Martin]

\Lying is part of the culture of Arbcom, one suspects.

Well, the ArbCom is delegated Jimbo, and as Jimbo has no compunctions against lying if he thinks doing so will serve his purposes, it stands to reason that the ArbCom should behave in the same manner.

[powercorrupts]

But maybe a terrible group will work out for the best.

What I am hearing through various channels is that this election will make or break Wikipedia.

I just can't see anything radical on offer at all - it's almost totally conservative. What could happen that is different this year?

There are 12 places and only 20 candidates to choose from (excluding Loosmark, although it looks like people can continue to vote for him - what an extra farce he's helped make it). Filling12 places from only 20 candidates is a gross lack of choice - Ideally you want at least a few choices per space, all properly checked for sock integrity beforehand.

Make that 19 now Balloonman's gone, although I'll post on that in the indecision 2010 thread.

I suppose Wikimedia might feel they need a specific team they can really trust this year, which they see as a challenging one. Donators wanting to see stability perhaps, which WM would always envision in terms of control. Perhaps they want to achieve things in-wiki this year and they need an arbcom that will deliver it to them - like a cheeky form of adminship revision which will effectively serve to rubber stamp the status quo. It must be really hard to pull out new stunts when the arbcom is either struggling or unpredictable, and I'm convinced WM have loads up their sleeve, on and off WP.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[NuclearWarfare]

But maybe a terrible group will work out for the best.

What I am hearing through various channels is that this election will make or break Wikipedia.

I just can't see anything radical on offer at all - it's almost totally conservative. What could happen that is different this year?

There are 12 places and only 20 candidates to choose from (excluding Loosmark, although it looks like people can continue to vote for him - what an extra farce he's helped make it). Filling12 places from only 20 candidates is a gross lack of choice - Ideally you want at least a few choices per space, all properly checked for sock integrity beforehand.

Make that 19 now Balloonman's gone, although I'll post on that in the indecision 2010 thread.

I suppose Wikimedia might feel they need a specific team they can really trust this year, which they see as a challenging one. Donators wanting to see stability perhaps, which WM would always envision in terms of control. Perhaps they want to achieve things in-wiki this year and they need an arbcom that will deliver it to them - like a cheeky form of adminship revision which will effectively serve to rubber stamp the status quo. It must be really hard to pull out new stunts when the arbcom is either struggling or unpredictable, and I'm convinced WM have loads up their sleeve, on and off WP.

What percentage of donors do you think know or care about adminship, adminship review, or the Arbitration Committee?

[GlassBeadGame]

But maybe a terrible group will work out for the best.

What I am hearing through various channels is that this election will make or break Wikipedia.

I just can't see anything radical on offer at all - it's almost totally conservative. What could happen that is different this year?

There are 12 places and only 20 candidates to choose from (excluding Loosmark, although it looks like people can continue to vote for him - what an extra farce he's helped make it). Filling12 places from only 20 candidates is a gross lack of choice - Ideally you want at least a few choices per space, all properly checked for sock integrity beforehand.

Make that 19 now Balloonman's gone, although I'll post on that in the indecision 2010 thread.

I suppose Wikimedia might feel they need a specific team they can really trust this year, which they see as a challenging one. Donators wanting to see stability perhaps, which WM would always envision in terms of control. Perhaps they want to achieve things in-wiki this year and they need an arbcom that will deliver it to them - like a cheeky form of adminship revision which will effectively serve to rubber stamp the status quo. It must be really hard to pull out new stunts when the arbcom is either struggling or unpredictable, and I'm convinced WM have loads up their sleeve, on and off WP.

What percentage of donors do you think know or care about adminship, adminship review, or the Arbitration Committee?

The donors have the Wikipedian Disease themselves and probably agonize over all the boring Wiki-crap pertaining to ArbCom that dominates this thread. The wider public does not care about ArbCom although they would be appalled by the prospect of pornographers and extreme libertarian advocates of practice such as bestiality being put in positions of influence over content in a project both used by and created, in part, by children. This is why small donor (Wikipedian) funding is so bad. It further isolates the project from the kind of pressures that over the long haul the serious funding community would never tolerate.

[powercorrupts]

But maybe a terrible group will work out for the best.

What I am hearing through various channels is that this election will make or break Wikipedia.

I just can't see anything radical on offer at all - it's almost totally conservative. What could happen that is different this year?

There are 12 places and only 20 candidates to choose from (excluding Loosmark, although it looks like people can continue to vote for him - what an extra farce he's helped make it). Filling12 places from only 20 candidates is a gross lack of choice - Ideally you want at least a few choices per space, all properly checked for sock integrity beforehand.

Make that 19 now Balloonman's gone, although I'll post on that in the indecision 2010 thread.

I suppose Wikimedia might feel they need a specific team they can really trust this year, which they see as a challenging one. Donators wanting to see stability perhaps, which WM would always envision in terms of control. Perhaps they want to achieve things in-wiki this year and they need an arbcom that will deliver it to them - like a cheeky form of adminship revision which will effectively serve to rubber stamp the status quo. It must be really hard to pull out new stunts when the arbcom is either struggling or unpredictable, and I'm convinced WM have loads up their sleeve, on and off WP.

What percentage of donors do you think know or care about adminship, adminship review, or the Arbitration Committee?

What do percentages have to do about anything?

I'm not talking about the steady trickle of 'everyday' people who Wikimedia are currently squeezing for even more money via email only just after they've already given (you rude, insensitive and greedy bastards). No - those people largely donate small amounts for the 'convenience factor' of Wikipedia . That is largely down to Google and its current page rank system - a factor which must must weigh extremely heavily on WP's mind: the fear of still being financially dependent, combined the income being for a shared service, with ever-increasing overheads, when the charity well starts to dry out.

No - I was referring to the 'important benefactors' that all charities have - whether they are genuinely charitable, or (as will no-doubt happen in WP's case) if they are getting something back in return. It's a simple fact that very few large benefactors in the corporate/charity world simply give their money with no questions asked.

[Theanima]

...aaaand out. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

[Zoloft]

...aaaand out. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

I do believe a daily dose of ginkgo biloba is prescribed for cases like these.

[TungstenCarbide]

...aaaand out. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

I do believe a daily dose of ginkgo biloba is prescribed for cases like these.

is it just me, or does anyone else's eyes glaze over trying to read FT2's drivel?

[CharlotteWebb]

is it just me, or does anyone else's eyes glaze over trying to read FT2's drivel?

I figure most people know better than to try.

[Peter Damian]

Some of it is quite clear.

This one contained the clearest case that I had known of the edits back when they took place. It seems that the 370 KB or so of Q&A at Arbcom election 2007 pushed the initial events of that case out of mind (the chat with this user took place on 7 December 2007).

This explains an email I got from Scribe (07 December 2007 21:14) suggesting that FT2 had contacted him about the post.

The really odd thing is that anyone believed anything so frankly implausible for so long (namely, that FT2 had prevailed upon several administrators - including Will Scribe and David Gerard - to 'do something' about the edits, that Gerard confirmed the oversights back, that Jimbo emailed about it as well, and yet FT2 forgot about them.

But of course the rest of the Arbcom were complicit in covering everything up at the same time. The discussion in April-May 2008 was completely in private, and I am only now piecing together the events that went on. (This latest revelation for example).

[edit] The arbitration committee members as of April 2008

Active Arbitrators
Blnguyen (talk • contribs • email)
Charles Matthews (talk • contribs • email) (charles.r.matthewsntlworld.com)
Deskana (talk • contribs • email) (djgwikigooglemail.com)
FayssalF (talk • contribs • email) (Fayssal Fertakh, szvestgmail.com)
FloNight (talk • contribs • email)
FT2 (talk • contribs • email) (public inbox: ft2wikipedia.inboxgmail.com)
Jdforrester (talk • contribs • email) (James Forrester aka "James F.", jdforrestergmail.com)
Jpgordon (talk • contribs • email) (Josh Gordon, user.jpgordongmail.com)
Kirill Lokshin (talk • contribs • email) (kirill.lokshingmail.com)
Morven (talk • contribs • email) (Matthew Brown, morvengmail.com)
Paul August (talk • contribs • email)
Sam Blacketer (talk • contribs • email) (sam.blacketergmail.com)
Thebainer (talk • contribs • email) (Stephen Bain, stephen.baingmail.com)
UninvitedCompany (talk • contribs • email) (Steve Dunlop, uninvitednerstrand.net)


This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[dogbiscuit]

...aaaand out. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

I do believe a daily dose of ginkgo biloba is prescribed for cases like these.

is it just me, or does anyone else's eyes glaze over trying to read FT2's drivel?

Brief version: I'm screwed.

Longer version, I've spent so long bullshitting about this, I've come to believe my own drivel.

It actually reflects badly on the rest of those involved, some of whom must have been aware of FT2 being misleading and have previously decided to keep quiet.

[Doc glasgow]

It actually reflects badly on the rest of those involved, some of whom must have been aware of FT2 being misleading and have previously decided to keep quiet.

Other possibility, arbcom and most of the community have been at tl;dr with this since the beginning.

I vaguely remember reading a lot of the public stuff at the time, being involved in some of the conversations, and following threads here and on wikipedia since, and I truly have no idea what the hell it was all about:

something to do with fetish edits, oversight and David Gerard and after that I lose the plot entirely.

Where Peter, John Van, and FT2's timezone fits in beats me.

I'm reminded of Palmerston's remarks on the Schleswig-Holstein Question

"Only three people have ever really understood the Schleswig-Holstein business—the Prince Consort, who is dead—a German professor, who has gone mad—and I, who have forgotten all about it."

And in the end, aside from Peter, who cares?