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

[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?

[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: Mon 29th November 2010, 8:29pm

[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: 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.

[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: Wed 1st December 2010, 9:28pm

[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.

[Zoloft]

...aaaand out.

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

[TungstenCarbide]

...aaaand out.

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: Sun 5th December 2010, 9:50am

[dogbiscuit]

...aaaand out.

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?