QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 28th November 2011, 11:35pm)
But I personally recall that it didn't seem quite so over-the-top at the time, and even I thought that it had to be tried, in the same way that you have to try telling your neighbor you're going to call the cops on his teenage son who's been trying to kill your dog before you actually call them.
Of course, a lot of people on Wikipedia Review supported this. It happens to be against UK law to send threatening emails, but anyway
that's not the point. The point is that with one exception the arbitrators were horrified by the sockpuppeter's actions, yet they did nothing about it, and when they realised they had to, and it was too late, they resorted to other blackmailing tactics. Kirill writes on Nov 30 last year
QUOTE
We should also consider the possibility that we will be asked why we did not
strip him of functionary status; I don't know that we have a good answer,
but we really need to have one ready before we publish anything.
Risker then prepared a statement given a sort of explanation of why they had not stripped FT2 of functionary status.
However, when an opportunity to blackmail FT2 into resigning was found, they chose that, and did not publish this statement. That was dishonourable, and is what Wikipedians call 'misleading the community'.
QUOTE
From risker.wp at gmail.com Tue Nov 30 03:15:14 2010
On 24 February 2010, FT2 contacted the Arbitration Committee by email to
request return of Checkuser permissions for the purpose of participating in
a specific sockpuppetry investigation. At that time, an email written by FT2
came to the attention of the entire Arbitration Committee. The email was
addressed to an abusive sockpuppeter who had been banned from English
Wikipedia and some other WMF projects as a result of a cross-wiki
investigation in which FT2 played a significant role. In the email, FT2
threatened to contact family members of the sockpuppeter directly, and laid
out a series of conditions including those external to Wikipedia with the
threat of contacting employers, government agencies, and others about the
nature of the socking. It was known at the time this email was disclosed to
the Committee ''en banc'' that the conditions outlined in FT2's email had
not been met, and there was concern that he might proceed with the actions
he had threatened in the email.
FT2 confirmed that the text of the email was
correct and implied that the content had been vetted in advance by a WMF
staff member and a WMF board member. Both denied having read the email at
any point. FT2 was also asked to provide further details of that particular
investigation, which he had refused to share with at least one sitting
member of the arbitration committee at the time of the investigation. The
discussion was largely abandoned about six weeks later. No formal decision
had been made because the Committee had not yet received the further
information requested.
In May 2010, FT2 advised the Arbitration Committee that he had now returned
from his wikibreak and requested both checkuser and oversight tools. He
acknowledged that he had not responded to the prior requests, and promised
to do so promptly. He did not provide that information to the Committee or,
to the best of our knowledge, any Committee member, from that point
forward. Because the Arbitration Committee never received the requested
information, and thus our investigation was incomplete, there was never a
formal vote on whether or not to reinstate FT2's checkuser and/or oversight
permissions. However, over the course of the two separate discussions, a
minimum of seven Arbitration Committee members expressed serious concerns
and/or outright opposition to returning checkuser to FT2.
[...]
This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Tue 29th November 2011, 8:26am
FT2 accuses Arbcom
Tue 29th November 2011, 3:32am
