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.

[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: Tue 30th November 2010, 8:16pm

[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.