Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FT2

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 08:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 08:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC).

FT2 (talk · contribs · logs)

Statement of the dispute

Whether FT2 deliberately misled the community regarding when he first learned his earliest edits to Wikipedia had been oversighted in December 2007.

Oversighted edits

During the run-up to the 2007 ArbCom election, which saw FT2 elected to the Committee, Peter Damian questioned FT2 about his earliest edits to Wikipedia. These appeared to show detailed knowledge of Zoophilia. Peter Damian was subsequently blocked because the manner in which he asked the questions was deemed inappropriate. After his block, he posted a link to the edits on his blog. The edits were subsequently oversighted by David Gerard on December 7, 2007, during the election. FT2 later solicited Peter Damian's indefinite block, [1] and lobbied hard for it not to be undone.

Alleged significance of the edits

FT2 has made 1,325 edits to Zoophilia and Talk:Zoophilia. The current edit history suggests his first edits to the article were on July 12, 2004, when he added just a few words, and on July 21, 2004, when he added more. The July 21 edit summary says "did some research to find out how common it is, and added the results." [2] This gives the impression of an editor with no personal knowledge of the subject, who has looked it up on behalf of Wikipedia.

However, his first edits to the article were in fact on July 11 — they were also his first edits to Wikipedia — and they appear to show detailed knowledge of the subject (without sources), before he could be expected to have done any research for Wikipedia. The edits are now oversighted and attributed to the next editor, an anon IP, here. His familiarity with the subject may or may not have made a difference to voters' perception of him during the election.

When did FT2 learn about the oversighting?

On July 4, 2008, Alex Bakharev asked FT2 what he knew about the oversighting. FT2 replied that Alex's question was the first he had heard of the matter. [3] He repeated this on November 27, 2008. [4]

He was urged several times during November and December 2008, and January 2009, to give more details by (in order of those who raised it on User talk:FT2) Tom Harrison, Jehochman, Giano, SlimVirgin, Private Musings, Viridae, Grace Note, Thatcher, Bishonen, and Duk; others have raised it elsewhere, including in e-mails to the Committee, and on Jimbo's talk page. He was asked specifically many times whether his reply to Alex Bakharev was truthful. He repeatedly replied that he did not want to give a quick answer, and had no time for a complete one, but that he would reply soon, probably just after Christmas. Since then, he has made a 15,000-word statement to the ArbCom, which has not been made public.

On January 13, 2009, Thatcher posted that FT2 had had at least three opportunities before July 2008 to learn that his edits had been oversighted — Jimbo had e-mailed FT2 about them on December 11, 2007, and FloNight and Peter Damian had e-mailed the ArbCom mailing list about them, which FT2 is a member of, on April 22 and May 2, 2008. See User talk:FT2#Necessary Clarification. In response, FT2 insists that, when he said in July and November 2008 that the first he had heard of the oversighting was in July, he either had not read, or could not remember reading, any of these e-mails.

He is therefore asking the community to believe that he did not request the oversighting of his earliest edits; that David Gerard did not tell him he had oversighted them; that he did not notice they had disappeared; that when Jimbo asked him about them in December 2007, the question was so unmemorable that he quickly forgot about it; that FloNight's and Peter Damian's e-mails about them either went unread or were similarly unmemorable and soon forgotten; and that the extensive discussion about the missing edits on Wikipedia Review, which began on December 21, 2007 — and where FT2 has an account and has been active — also failed to jog his memory. As a result, his statements of July and November 2008 that he knew nothing before July were mistaken, he says, but he believed he was telling the truth. He says he did not remember until December 2008 that he had been told about the oversights in December 2007 by Jimbo.

It is submitted that this version of events does not stand up to scrutiny, that the reluctance to be forthcoming amounts to behavior unbecoming of a member of the ArbCom — as well as a checkuser and oversighter — and that the situation is damaging the Committee. Accordingly, FT2 is asked to resign his seat.

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)[reply]
David Gerard has confirmed that he recalls telling FT2 about the oversighting at the time: "I let him know it was gone soon after I zapped it, as I recall." [5] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Desired outcome

That FT2 resign from the Arbitration Committee.

Evidence of disputed behavior

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am no longer as convinced as I once was that this, by itself, is a resignation moment. However, FT2's statements were misleading, his answers evasive, and his insistence that he could not make a simple correction (as recommended to him by David Gerard, Jimbo and FloNight) without first taking a month to explain the situation to the new arbitrators, is peculiar at best. As well, FT2 continues to obscure the truth of his acquaintance with David Gerard with careful parsing of the language; he met Gerard during the election, so he believes it is truthful to say that he did not meet Gerard before the election. I expect better from someone who proposes to tell other editors how to behave. Thatcher 12:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike Thatcher, I am convinced that this is a "resignation moment" (great phrasing, by the way). The community has clearly lost trust, not in the committee, but in FT2 alone, as indicated at the Arbcom Feedback page created back in December. This needs to happen, sooner rather than later. SDJ 15:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A lot happened while I was sleeping, but as promised I'll certify the basis. A dispute does exist here. Let's hope the request for comment helps matters. Durova^Charge! 16:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I just felt a clear answer, and an apology, would have cleared all this stuff up ages ago. It's a shame. Privatemusings (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)I'm signing here because I tried to chat about this with FT over the course of a few posts, my preferred outcome is that FT steps down from arbcom, checkuser, and oversight, but if he's up for staying an admin, I think that's cool.[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

I think David Gerard's conduct also needs to be thoroughly examined, but yes, SV has summed this problem up very well. FT2's position is now untenable. Giano (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. As much as I found FT2 to be cogent in providing advice during an email exchange on the setting up of AdminReview—for which I'm thankful—this current issue calls into question whether membership of ArbCom is appropriate. I'm open to persuasion otherwise, but ... it's not looking good prima facie. Tony (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everyking (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. Too bad this RFC isn't useful: the longer this goes, the holier FT2 says his behavior has been. Saint FT seems unlikely to step down voluntarily. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to believe that transparency is one of the great virtues of Wikipedia, and that it is especially critical that members of ArbCom act with transparency at all times possible. While I feel I must repeat my acknowledgment that there are some situations where transparency, especially at ArbCom, is not appropriate, this is not one of those cases. SV has stated the problem very clearly. I pray that FT2's response is as clear and complete. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For a member of the ArbCom to act like this is shocking. These people are entrusted with powers - powers which should not be abused in this way. I am truely disgusted.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— CharlotteWebb 19:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed completely —Sandahl (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse --Duk 19:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. PhilKnight (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Other than to comment that the details I have seen (although I cannot vouch for their accuracy) do not indicate a deep knowledge regarding zoophilia but are otherwise likely to be regarded as giving grounds for concern, I concur with the other points raised. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's fairly clear by now that FT2 has lied in public and has been caught doing so. While I strongly believe the original oversighting should not have happened, particularly not during an arbcom election, that is crying over split milk and we can't hypothesize about what might have happened in the past had things turned out differently. The real issue is FT2's lying - there is no other word - when a simple truthful explanation might well have sufficed. Moreschi (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Grace Note (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Yes, I have read through David Gerards hello. And no, I am definitely not among SV´s regular supporters. And yes, I think FT2 did excellent work in nailing Bassettcat and lots of other stuff. But....now FT2 wants us to believe he has a worse memory than Reagan during his last years? Sorry, I just don´t buy it. You have lost our trust, FT2. Please resign. Regards, Huldra (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He needs to stand down. Giggy (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrators in life and play-life like Wikipedia have to be trusted by all parties or else their arbitration will be rejected by one or both parties, the bad acts will continue, and there will be further need. If FT2 were mistrusted by only some it would be cause for his activities to be limited, but FT2 is now trusted by very few. Any time, therefore, he attempts to do the job (and remember that arbitrator is a job title and not a status), it's a failure. He already is not an arbitrator, in other words, and therefore he should not be on ArbCom. Geogre (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was right. Crystal whacker (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Like the boy who cried wolf, once a liar how can we distinguish the truth in what one says? Shot info (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Evasion is not helpful...it would be best if FT2 stepped down from arbcom at this point. There have been too many poorly explained situations that are making it harder and harder to trust his judgements.--MONGO 04:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, I do not think FT2 have the trust of the community at this step and he should formally resign as an arbitrator. He should be commended for all the good deeds he has done but as a sitting arbitrator he is not helpful Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response: FT2 stepping down from ArbCom until a way is found for a fair hearing

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

See User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_42#Open_letter_from_FT2

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute.

Outside view by Ryan Postlethwaite

I don't expect this to be a popular view, but it's my honest interpretation after spending too much time looking over things. I still have confidence in FT2, there's been several incidences where he's lead the ArbCom through some difficult cases and without his participation they wouldn't have been solved (Poetgate springs to mind). The orangemarlin incident was unfortunate, but that was put down to a breakdown in communication from the whole committee, rather than an error of judgement by FT2. Now to the oversights. I respect that FT2 had asked for peoples help regarding the zoophilia edits when the issues first came to light back in December 2007 - he wanted some advice about how to proceed and what to say. I thoroughly believe him when he said that he had no intention to have them oversighted and he did indeed merely want advice of fellow administrators. After the oversight had happened, what really was FT2 supposed to do? Did he even know it had happened until relatively recently? Who Knows. What I do know however is that it wasn't him that oversighted any edits nor asked for them to be oversighted. The buck stops with David Gerrard in my opinion - if there's a problem with the oversight, then he was the person solely responsible for deciding whether the edits warrented removal per the oversight policy. FT2 didn't have the functional tools to oversight the edits and David must therefore have made that crucial decision. For the past few months we've seen the usual suspects pop up to make snide remarks towards FT2 to carry on their tirade against the Arbitration Committee. They don't care about the oversight issue, they just want to lay into a sitting arbitrator because they feel, right or wrongly, let down by the committee. That isn't the way to proceed with things in my opinion and I'd characterise a couple of the users as simple playground bullies using their influence to belittle an arbitrator for ulterior motives. Sorry, that's just wrong in my eyes. FT2 still has my confidence.

Users who endorse this summary:

Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This makes sense. TS 11:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Avruch^T 13:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know first hand that FT2 does not take oversighting edits lightly, and I have interacted with him long enough to have faith in his general judgment. I have a deep respect for some of the editors who filled this RfC but I think the Arbitration Committee is able to take the necessary decision by themselves if I am proved wrong. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above. Strong comment by Ryan. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 16:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FT2 could have handled this little mess better, but I can fully understand acting a bit irrationally when under the kind of attacks FT2 has been. Having one arbitrator (out of 17) that is not popular with the cabal-du-jour is a good thing. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely well said. --El on ka 19:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sound conclusion. Fred Talk 23:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well said Ryan. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68 (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, yes. David made a (fairly trivial) mistake, and it has been disgracefully manipulated by malcontents for their own reasons.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with what Scott says in regards to David, but I still agree with most of what Ryan states. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is closest to my feel of the situation. -- Banjeboi 06:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Icewedge (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by TS

This looks as if it started as a very, very ugly and reprehensible series of comments (which the originator now repudiates)[6] to embarrass FT2 over his involvement in editing an article about a taboo sexual practice that touches on subjects such as animal welfare. Good faith attempts to quietly deprive the attack of oxygen have backfired and it has become a classic "what did he know and when did he know it" affair. I submit that the question is meaningless. FT2 has a right to defend his privacy against such disgusting and scurrilous attacks, and we have a duty to aid him. The details of how we do that should not be used to deflect our gaze from the loathsome and despicable activities being conducted against FT2.

I ask those hounding FT2 to stop now. You have done enough harm to Wikipedia and to FT2.

Users who endorse this summary:

TS 12:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agreed. This has gone on more than long enough. GlassCobra 15:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Caulde 15:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 16:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think FT2 has handled this wisely, but this now amounts to a witch-hunt by people who are more interested in wikipolitics than anything else. Get a grip.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.Z-man 18:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I would also point out that just because someone edits the Zoophilia article doesn't mean that they are a practitioner of the same. Wikipedia is not censored, and we have many articles about topics which are offensive: Pedophilia, Rape, Serial killers, Genital mutilation, Child pornography, etc. These are notable encyclopedic topics, about which reliable source articles and books have been written. We should not censure someone just because they happen to work on an article about a controversial topic. --El on ka 19:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This looks like a hugely overblown non-issue. Hut 8.5 22:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha shouldn't have traction on Wikipedia. Fred Talk 23:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

View by Sticky Parkin

All I can say is I can sort of imagine being in this embarrassing position, of having edits you made when you first joined the project come back to haunt you. None of us have (probably) made edits like this, so we don't know what we would do in that situation. I find it hard to believe an oversight would have taken place without the user involved being asked or told of it, but knowing FT2 slightly, I can believe he may not have read some emails, especially if they involved something as painful as this or came during a stressful time. That may not be a personality trait that would effect his ability as an arb, because he obviously was not adjudicating that particular issue. We are supposed to WP:AGF of our fellow editors, and so while we personally may or may not be suspicious to varying degrees, we can't poossibly know the truth, so we should try to believe they aren't lying, or at least have the good of the project at heart. Wikipedia needs a way to remove arbs who aren't constructive. I'm not sure whether this is exceptionally the case with FT2- I'm sure many people are dissatisfied with a few of the individual arbs for various reasons of their own, though several went at the time of the elections. But unless we have been in the same position ourselves, I don't think we can blame FT2 for his actions around this particular issue, as the accusations made were so personal, and at one point I think involved suggestions of attempting to report him to people outside the wiki (though not the police.) I'm not sure if FT2 will stay as an arb- my opinion of arbcom working as a group is low (at least as it existed for most of 2008), and of other parts of the wiki hierarchy is low. So I suppose I'm making another unpopular point that these were very painful circumstances and perhaps shouldn't perhaps be held against FT, who essentially has been rendered an easy target by the accusations over his edits. I'd like to commend SlimVirgin for making this RfC, and Ryan for suggesting it on AN/I, because I agree with Ryan about the bullying that was happening being the wrong way to go. Hopefully this RfC will be an improvement on that, rather than a continuation of it. I'd like to ask FT to reflect on his past and future behaviour, but to wish him well as a person, whether or not he continues as an arb. To me the last straw when it comes to FT being an arb has by no means come, if it were to come it would probably be over one of his erratic actions rather than a lack of action. Sticky Parkin 12:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That David Gerard said he told FT of the oversight after he did it, seems telling I have to say. Sticky Parkin 19:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Sticky Parkin 12:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

View by Jehochman

I have investigated this matter independently and am convinced that there was absolutely nothing wrong with FT2's earliest edits to Zoophilia which are now oversighted. Had the truth of the matter been disclosed promptly, I am convinced that the election results would have been the same. (Moved)

Had FT2 promptly corrected his erroneous or incomplete statements of December 9, 2008, much controversy and disruption would have been avoided. Once a statement is made, there is an obligation to correct it if additional information is subsequently discovered. Privacy concerns or a desire to consult ArbCom are not reasons to delay correcting false statements. At minimum he should have said, "My prior statement was not correct and I will explain why once I get permission to disclose the relevant details."

FT2 should admit that he erred in failing to promptly respond to questions, and in failing to correct mis-statements. He should undertake to do better going forward.

Users who endorse this summary:

I have investigated this matter independently and am convinced that there was absolutely nothing wrong with FT2's earliest edits to Zoophilia which are now oversighted. Had the truth of the matter been disclosed promptly, I am convinced that the election results would have been the same. I very much dislike the assertions by innuendo in this RFC. Jehochman ^Talk 14:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the second two paragraphs; I have no opinion on the first paragraph. Karanacs (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Majorly talk 16:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. FT2 should do this, and then those who have made a mountain out of his molehill should be trouted, and then we should move on (fat chance)--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This whole distasteful bit of drama could have been avoided. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Karanacs. Giggy (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Fritzpoll

I have read the material presented by Thatcher, SlimVirgin, FT2 and others. The problem I have in reading it is that Thatcher and Slim's questions seem very simple, and FT2's response seems to be to involve the entire Arbitration Committee and to insist on constructing a watertight case to "defend" himself.
Perhaps this is because the issues themselves are very complex, because the matter involves issues of privacy, embarrassment, or the only recently ceased heated conflict with another editor over this issue. But the questions that are asked are valid ones, and it is a shame that FT2 could not move faster to allay any suspicions of impropriety, and it will doubtless remain to be seen (once the back-and-forth correcting of evidence and interpretation has been completed) what the outcome is. In all instances, however, it is important that we afford FT2 the benefit of the doubt as an editor of Wikipedia.
As an arbitrator, however, we have a problem. The delay has only heightened the sense that there is something to hide, or for excuses to be worked out. This may not be fair - in fact it almost certainly isn't. But in a position of trust, such as that of a sitting Arb, it is more about the perception of propriety, and less the reality. By delaying a response to this issue, FT2 has heightened the perception that something is wrong, which will inevitably taint him in his Arbitration duties. By standing down, and allowing independent examination to examine the evidence, there will be no stigma to him as an editor - indeed it will be viewed by many as an honourable act. By clinging to his position, however, I fear he will ultimately taint the entire Committee.
To summarise: the rights and wrongs of the accusations and the reasons behind them are less pertinent to FT2's position as an arbitrator - the delay in FT2 giving an unambiguous response will cast doubts in the eyes of many of his position of influence within the Arbitration Committee, which will affect the community's perception of the integrity of the Committee as a whole. It is unfortunate, but I see little or no alternative at this late stage. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Fritzpoll (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman ^Talk 14:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hipocrite (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC) "A judge should ... act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity ... of the judiciary."[reply]
I was in December 2007 one of the admins handling the Damian-FT2 mess. I knew of the oversights during the election, but not who was the oversighter. I thus could endorse the first paragraph of Jehochman's view. However FT2's conduct in the Damian-FT2 mess has been a problem at least that far back. There are two possible explanations for FT2s actions then and since. One is that he is knowingly presenting self-serving and distorted descriptions of things he has been involved in. The other is that he doesn't bother to learn the truth before he posts. Neither would be surprising if encountered in an editor, neither is tolerable in an arbitrator. I don't care which is true at this point, the best solution for either is the removal of FT2 from the committee. GRBerry 16:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Majorly talk 16:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Friday (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I may comment further, but this is generally on point. MBisanz ^talk 17:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly agree. Arbitrators, like Cæsar's wife, should be above suspicion. DuncanHill (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GRBeery's comments also. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per GRBerry's response, especially. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GRBerry as well. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 21:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely outstanding summation of the issue, as is GRB's endorsement statement. Whatever the root of the problem, the resultant behavior by FT2 leaves only the option of FT2 no longer being on the AC. SDJ 22:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moreschi (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also endorse this. The original matter was pretty small beer. Refusing to clear up the suspicion of lying about it is not. Grace Note (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Giggy (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the issue. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slrubenstein | Talk 16:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rarely have we ever disagreed on something, and this is definitely not a situation in which that would change. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the allegations themselves that concern me in this culminating incident but the obfuscation and delay followed by excessive verbiage that have attended not just this, but several of the crises that FT2 has played a large part in over the last year. It's a failure to understand and appropriately respond to concerns of the community.Woonpton (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Shot info (talk) 05:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

View by Avruch

This RfC is about the wrong topic. Few if any of FT2s harshest critics view the set of problems described above as serious - you'll note that none of them, at any time, have attempted to explain how they impact his role as an arbitrator or why the rest of the community should agree that these lapses are a severe breach of any standard.

FT2 has been involved in a list of contentious cases, and his involvement and positions have provoked a fair amount of outrage in parts of the community. Whether its OrangeMarlin, Peter Damian or Giano... He's angered a lot of people and dismayed a number of others. These issues are a valid basis for an RfC. They are the central, underlying dispute people have with FT2 - not this "gotcha" game of who found what e-mail when. If FT2 has angered you, if you think his judgment has been poor or that you or others have been wronged, then that should be what you raise as the primary subject for discussion when you attempt to convince him to resign - or convince others to dismiss him.

When the final tally of this discussion is compiled, it will be distorted by a concerning phenomena. FT2 has been the recipient of severe criticism for quite some time, and again and again I've seen that editors defending him, or even simply criticising the rhetoric used against him, have been attacked. A thread on FT2s page features some intemperate insults... When one editor attempted to remind others that we have a policy here on Wikipedia about personal attacks, he was described there and elsewhere as sycophantic and stupid. This type of behavior will scare many people away from commenting in this discussion in a way likely to make them the next target for abuse. Avruch^T 14:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Avruch^T 14:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there are actual, substantive disputes with FT2, rather than this latest ineffable silliness, they should be taken to dispute resolution. --TS 14:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GlassCobra 15:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pat kisses Avruch on the cheek Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 16:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. And you can see that I'm not sycophantic, I've commented in another thread further up FT2's talk page involving ElinorD, disagreeing with FT and saying similar things, that the answers there were simple and still weren't being given. I've also disagreed with FT2 on certain recent RFARs (that involving damian, perhaps some other ones.) Not saing he's necessarily done anything wrong, just saying the accusation was incorrect, I do not always agree with FT2 or others of the wiki-hierarchy, and say so publicly. Sticky Parkin 17:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.Z-man 18:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--El on ka 19:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68 (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-- lucasbfr ^talk 08:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

View by Friday

There's a lot to wade through here. Unfortunately, FT2's responses to the whole debacle look like attempts to obscure, rather than clarify. But I think we can simply ignore certain parts of the problem. There are two big issues I see here. 1) Anyone with so poor a memory is not suited to the job of being an arbitrator. 2) FT2 has lost the support of a large portion of the community. Whether this is well justified or not, this is a serious problem. He's not able to usefully perform the job under these circumstances. The fact that FT2 apparently refuses to recognize his untenable position means he lacks the sound judgement that arbitrators need to have. Regardless of the merits of the initial dispute, he's adequately demonstrated that he's not suited to the job. Call it a "resignation" if that helps smooth things over, or call it being sacked if that fails. The details of it are unimportant. This is a pretty simple problem to solve- there's no reason it should be difficult or time-consuming. Friday (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

As I was sitting down to compose my own view, Friday posted this, and it completely encompasses nearly everything I wanted to say. So, rather than simply echoing many of Friday's points, I will simply strongly endorse this view, as well as Friday's concerns expressed on the talkpage of this RfC. SDJ 17:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Majorly talk 17:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly agree. DuncanHill (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rschen7754 (T C) 21:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FT2 must step down. Giggy (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially my opinion Fritzpoll (talk) 11:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - he's lost the confidence of a large part of the Community, irrespective if he deserves it or not. He can take steps to regain that confidence but so far he seems to be doing everything in his power to pretend that "These are not the droids you are looking for". Shot info (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

View by Giano

The long and the short of this matter, ignoring rights, wrongs, lies and truths, is that FT2's position is now untenable; this is a situation he has created for himself by evasion and prevarication over an unnecessarily prolonged period. By clinging to power he is damaging both the new Arbcom and the project in the eyes of many. He now needs to be judged as he has, all too willingly, judged others. He needs to resign and let the air in on this regrettable case.

Users who endorse this summary:

Giano (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can also support this view, as I agree wholeheartedly that with the lack of trust the community feels for FT2, his position iss no longer even precarious, but rather has passed the point of no return. SDJ 18:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— CharlotteWebb 19:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse --Duk 19:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the spreading of the lack of trust in FT2 is particularly troublesome. Personally, I lost a lot of trust during the orangemarlin debacle (though I agreed that 'something' was reasonable to do about OM's sometimes overly agressive participation). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the heart of the matter. Even if standing up for Arb independence and privacy were more just, it is not better for the encyclopedia which is best served by FT2's resignation. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Giggy (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Shot info (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit to rarely agreeing with Giano II, but he has it dead to rights here. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if there's any point to this at this point, but still, this is one of Giano's finest statements on this matter or any other: none of the excess that sometimes mars his generally correct views of the faults on Wikipedia, just solid analysis of a lamentable situation. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Llywrch

I'm finding it hard, coming to this matter cold, to understand exactly what this dispute is about or with whom I agree or disagree -- or even if I care about the central issue. However, after following this matter from WP:RfAr to WP:AN/I to here, it is clear that this matter is beginning to spiral out of control, & as time goes on more people are being drawn into this dispute. If the original motivation was to minimize Wikidrama, then at this point the only solution to accomplish this is for FT2 to resign from the ArbCom. I'm not implying that he did anything wrong: I'm saying that if FT2 believes in the goals of the project, then he needs to take a bullet for it. As all of us would be expected do to.

Users who endorse this summary:

-- llywrch (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Stifle (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis by Scott MacDonald

1. FT2 made some cringeworthy POV edits. FT2 is guilty of bad editorial judgement. 2. Aggrieved off-site trolling went on, linking to the edits. 3. David Gerard oversighted the edits. Actually, they should simply have been (at most) deleted - oversight was overkill. But he's admitted that mistake. 4. When it came to light (but before it was a big deal) FT2 made a statement that was inaccurate about when he knew. Not so good, but he was embarrassed, and it was some months/years after the event. 5. The episode was exploited mainly by people who had motives to "get back" at arbcom, or drag oversight/checkusers over the coals (Gerard had wrongly checkusered Giano, Slim had been in a long running dispute with arbcom and checkusers). Others politicised the debate, or deliberately stoked drama over fairly minor things. 6. FT2 has been foolishly tardy in clarifying his statement - allowing people to make hay of the affair and stoke the drama further.

At points 1, 4 (perhaps) and particularly 6, FT2 has been guilty of poor judgement, but this pales into insignificance compared to the nasty, exploitative and bad faith politicising of this by people who should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Users who endorse this summary:

--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TS 19:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Not a million miles from my own understanding. "Where's the beef?" is, I believe, a North American way of expressing my feeling on the core events of this. The affair has provided a thin layer of common justification for various heterogeneous groups with separate grievances against FT2 in particular or the arbitration committee in general. It's pure wikipolitics.[reply]
This is my 'favourite' summary of it so far, balanced, including both sides of the issue. I suppose, however, it doesn't consider the oversight possibly being related to someone's suggestions that he would cause trouble in FT's real life, by trying to report him in some way. Sticky Parkin 21:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly, yes. I think too much is being made of FT2's failure to give one word answers to the "have you stopped beating your wife" line of questioning. I have no opinion either way on Peter Damian - as in, part of me sees him as bringing a battle to Wikipedia but part of me recognises that he is right in at least some of what he has said about COI in respect of FT2, something which wass separate from his position as an arbitrator until the PD case came onto the ArbCom radar. Anyone who has followed FT2s involvement in disputes at all will know that he is pretty much incpaable of giving an answer in less than five thousand words. That's just the way his mind works - he has to explore an idea to the bitter end. This is a feature, not a bug. I do think, however, that FT2 is now holed below the waterline as far as sitting in judgment on other editors for POV and COI editing goes, and that is not really a tenable position for an arbitrator. So whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, and however malicious and distasteful any of the parties may have been in intent, I think FT2 will still have to carefully consider whether he can honourably continue in post. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the best summary I've seen of events yet.. --Versa geek 22:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree with this because my main disagreement with FT2 is with his terrible editorial judgment. On the 'off-site trolling' see my posts below. The chronology is important. I agreed to delete the post, and it was gone by the 6th. It was off-wiki and mostly under control by the 7th until I spotted the oversights. That, and the fact that no one in the Wikipedia administration STILL admits to me that it happened - it only came to light because of Giano's efforts. That part of McDonald's post is inaccurate. Peter Damian (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree entirely. I'm puzzled by the sight of people working themselves up into a state of frothing indignation over something that happened over a year ago and wasn't really all that significant back then. Since the complaints otherwise seem unreasonable, I agree with Doc that ulterior motives are the best explanation for what would otherwise be completely irrational behavior. As to the argument that "If a few people with a grudge make enough noise, even if their complaints are unfounded, you have to resign." that seems to both set a dangerous precedent and run opposite to natural justice. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good assessment of the situation. Cla68 (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. A good portion of the drama around this is not proportional to anything FT2 did or didn't say, but is simply because some axe-grinders are trying to make this into a far bigger deal than it actually is. --El on ka 05:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Horologium (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
لenna vecia 17:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by GoodDay

I know little about FT2. However, it's apparent that many editors are unsatisfied with his conduct in office. Perhaps a recall method is required for Arbitrators. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expected June 2009 by request of Jimbo. MickMacNee (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah hah, jolly good. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Sarcasticidealist

The information presently available reflects badly on FT2. However, other members of the Arbitration Committee have indicated that additional information is likely to be forthcoming in the not too distant future, and so judgments as final as requests for resignation (which, based on the presently-available information, may well be warranted) should be suspended.

Users who endorse this summary:

Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, let's not be hasty. Karanacs (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment, though perhaps FT2 should voluntarily recuse from all current cases in the mean time. I am sure this can all be sorted before the deadline, though, as you suggest. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There is no urgency here. --El on ka 22:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68 (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Duk

Wikipedia allows anonymous user accounts. The only way the community has to judge these editors is the contribution history connected to that account. FT2's contribution history was altered during an election to remove possibly embarrassing edits. It doesn't matter what the edits were or if the oversighting changed the outcome of the election. What matters is that the oversight tool was abused to undermine the fairness of an election. It took away from the community the ability to judge a candidate and make a fair and informed vote. This can't be allowed to stand if the Wikipedia community wants fair elections.

Users who endorse this summary:

Duk
Generally, for all Arbs (and all admins, too - anyone who has asked for the trust of the community). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Giggy (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Giano (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geogre (talk) 11:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Well said. Let's keep our focus: this is about policy, not personality (except that the personality in question seems to denigrate policy and yet is serving in a position where complete adherence to policy is necessary)[reply]
Yes, this issue is being neglected. Misuse of these special secretive powers is so serious that I think that no excuse or apology is good enough and serious censure should be the automatic result. Paul Beardsell (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks of the user or his edits, there were parts of a supposedly public work made to "go away" while that user was running for a position of responsibility.THINMAN (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

View by Durova

Most of us can date the beginning of our concerns regarding FT2 to l'Affair Orangemarlin. FT2 posted a startling announcement, then Kirill Lokshin came by shortly afterward to say that FT2 was running on his own steam. Developments in any high drama action are a bit hard to follow, but both Kirill's and FT2's subsequent statements shifted to narrow that gap, then the Committee officially called the Orangemarlin debacle a collective error. One thing can be said for certain: FT2 didn't balk at making the announcement. But beyond that, where does the balance of responsibility really belong? Has the Committee covered for FT2 or has he taken the brunt of the blame rather than point fingers? More importantly, how did things get to that impasse within the Committee and what have they learned from it?

The community hasn't forgotten those questions. As long as they remain unanswered a cloud remains over FT2's head. This has made him a lightning rod for concerns and impeded his effectiveness at other endeavors. Is he the problem or the fall guy?

Another thing is clear: his communication style is not one that handles this ambiguity well. Depending on one's perspective, he either goes over as longwinded and dodgy or meticulous but a rather hard read. His talents are better suited to internal reports for a small audience than to general announcements or crisis management.

Holding off on a final opinion because the concerns stated above and the Oversight matter really leave too much out of view. I await the Committee's action.

Users who endorse this summary:

Durova^Charge! 20:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC) - especially the comments about communication style. A long paragraph (or two) that takes several edits to develop when a 10 word sentence and a diff would suffice, make for (imo) a lot of skipped communication.[reply]
Agreed, but (maybe apart from the last few days) I've found that in the last few months his posts haven't been as long. But maybe I've just got used to it.:) Sticky Parkin 20:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can certify this on the basis that I've tried and failed to communicate with him. His word-to-answer ratio is easily over 9000. — CharlotteWebb 20:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very well said. There are clearly problems with FT2, but let's hold off on demanding resignations before we have the whole story (or as close to it as we're going to get). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems fair, and from Durova especially so as I think Durova has more cause than most of us to rue the effect of assuming consent from lack of dissent (if she will pardon me alluding to painful events of the past). Guy (Help!) 22:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68 (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Horologium (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Would help - Shot info (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically agree with everything about the Orangemarlin debacle. The committee had some 'splainin' to do that it never has gotten around to, so far as I know. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite my endorsement of ScienceApologist's opinion below, I also think this is an excellent summary. Powers ^T 17:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JoshuaZ (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

View by David Gerard

I've just read pages and pages of rubbish on this stuff, much of it mentioning me, and no-one's actually asked me any direct questions as yet. So I thought I'd answer them anyway.

I first met FT2 when the arbcom election was in full swing. FT2 had barely shown up on my radar before then. I believe I greeted FT2 with "Haha, you're going straight to ArbCom. HERE'S YOUR SHOVEL." which is my usual greeting to new arbs. The votes were making it a dead cert FT2 would be on the arbcom, and so it came to be.

The oversighted edit should have been single-revision deleted. This was because Peter Damian was using it in a trolling post attempting to paint FT2 as a bestialist. Jimbo asked me about it afterwards and I went "good Lord, should have been a deletion not an oversight, I shall be more careful in future." Jimbo concurred that single-rev deletion to quash obnoxious WR-sourced idiot trolling like this was quite in order. And I was and have been more careful, and that was the end of it. Until Peter Damian got in with Giano, who appears to now consider Wikipedia Review regulars to be reliable and trustworthy sources. I'm sure that will work out well. (Oddly, I understand Giano previously emailed FT2 about this exact matter and was satisfied at the time. I'm sure Giano can find this email in his records; if not, I'm sure FT2 can put it up with full headers, with Giano's permission of course.)

Summary: this is an idiot tempest driven by a banned WR troll and Giano's wounded sensibilities. Just because the wiki's biggest smoke machines are furiously pumping out clouds doesn't actually imply there's a fire.

Users who endorse this summary:

- David Gerard (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--TS 09:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Nicely picturesque, and puts that particular event in its proper perspective - it is clearly negligible and a complete red herring. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Horologium (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

View by Peter Damian

There is something I don't understand here. I deleted the post (and its links, obviously) on Dec 6 2007. Why did Gerard delete it on the 7th? I was in continuous contact with WJBSCribe, trying to clean up the mess, and it was sorted out by the end of Thursday 6th. Who told Gerard about the links? They were deleted late on the 7th (I have a chronology). How did Gerard know? Peter Damian (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit] There are many other inaccuracies on this page. Peter Damian (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit] The biggest inaccuracy being the idea that the edits were deleted because (oneof them) was linked to from a blog. (1) The blog post in question was deleted before the oversights took place. That makes Gerard's story a complete lie. (2) One of the edits deleted was not linked to by the blog. Why did Gerard delete that? This part of the story has yet to be told

Users who endorse this summary:

Peter Damian (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know about "complete lie" one way or the other but I would like to know. There are aspects of this mess which make me feel decidedly uneasy. There are parts of the story still to be told. I am most unhappy that the oversight tool can be wielded without oversight. Paul Beardsell (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

View by LessHorrid vanU

I am grateful for David Gerard above detailing the interaction between Peter Damian and FT2 at the time of the election; PD was sanctioned for drawing attention to some unfortunate edits by FT2, which were then oversighted, and the ongoing election to ArbCom. It is a period, and a matter of the content of the edits, for which FT2 has not only failed to provide any distinct comment, but also a percieved reluctance to acknowledge that there are concerns that should be answered.

Users who endorse this summary:

LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sane and reasonable. LHvU should be banned immediately. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Viridae ^Talk 23:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC) - especially JzG's comment....[reply]
Giggy (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Giano (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fritzpoll (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse --Duk 19:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse MBisanz ^talk 14:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

View by JoshuaZ

There seem to be a variety of different issues at hand here. There seem to two separate but interrelated issues which are causing concern: First, there is concern about FT2's actions in regard to the oversighted edits. Second, there is concern about FT2's actions as an arbitrator.

First, in regard to the oversighted edits: No one is questioning David Gerard's conduct at all. Second, the oversighting itself was not a big deal. Nor was the initial lack of discussion. What was an issue is that it many users think that FT2 either evaded answering questions about the matter or lied outright. Thatcher's analysis of that matter is hard to ignore. It looks like FT2 lied about what he knew when and then attempted to avoid coming clean in this regard. This apparent lack of honesty by FT2 has reduced his credibility with many people in the community. To use a possibly tired analogy, it often isn't the crime that's the problem but the coverup. In this case, there doesn't seem to have been any substantial crime, but FT2's subsequent actions were not helpful.

This controversy over the oversighted edits cannot be dismissed as some have attempted to do so as being simply part of a trolling campaign by WR and Giano. Many long-standing editors and most notably Thatcher have expressed serious concern. And let us not forget that this most recent phase of this debacle occurred because Bishonen blocked FT2 over this matter. Discounting these concerns is not accurate.

Second, there is concern over FT2's actions as an arbitrator. The two most prominent examples of these concerns are the Orangemarlin debacle and FT2's actions in regard to the motion to desysop Slimvirgin. I will not go into great detail about those two situations beyond the most relevant facts.

In the Orangemarlin case, FT2 published with no prior warning an ArbCom decision concering Orangemarlin with notes that no ArbCom member had objected to any of the findings. This case concerned primarily User:Orangemarlin who was given no warning that such a case was occurring and was given no ability to offer evidence or response. After the ArbCom disowned this action, a later statement was made by the ArbCom that the matter was not FT2's fault but rather due to unspecified communication failures in the committee. Many editors found this claim not credible. Moreover, editors expressed concern that FT2 thought that it was at all reasonable that a secret case about an editor's conduct could occur with no input from that editor until after the ArbCom was done.

Shortly thereafter, FT2's actions caused further questions about his suitability for the ArbCom. In particular, after Slimvirgin undid a block of FT2, FT2 filed an ArbCom case requesting that she be desysopped. This was not a problem. What was a problem was that FT2 thought that he did not need to recuse himself from hearing the case. FT2 said that "On principle, I will be considering the level to which I am involved or otherwise, and whether I can consider myself acting neutrally in the case as a result, and whether recusal is appropriate. I am fairly sure I am not involved to that extent, but I would like to take a little time and consider carefully." Many editors, including myself, were disturbed that FT2 could think that he could be reasonably impartial in such a situation (although he did eventually recuse himself). Moreoever, even if FT2 were some saintly individual, the problem of the appearance of conflict would be so massive as to be a problem by itself. This should not have been a situation that required any thinking at all.

Both the Orangemarlin case and the Slimvirgin recusal issue raise serious questions about FT2's judgment as an arbitrator. The apparent dishonesty about the oversighted edits does not help matters.

Obviously, FT2 is very good at certain tasks. His actions in regard to the Poetlister matter demonstrated extreme patience and careful investigation and he should be commended for that work. However, he can continue to do so such work just as well as a checkuser and admin without being on the ArbCom. It is thus misleading to point to that work as strong evidence that he should continue to be on the ArbCom. At this point, many different members of the community are not happy with FT2 for a variety of different reasons. The fact that FT2 has done little to acknowledge this discontent does not help matters. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

JoshuaZ (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I question the bit about David Gerard, but frankly there is no point going after him for something that happened so long ago. Moreschi (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no questions over David's conduct, meatball:DefendEachOther applies to all Wikipedians in good standing and in my experience David will oversight quickly and quietly where needed or explain a better way where one exists. In re FT2 I am not going to join the witch-hunt, I would rather defer to the judgment of Brad, but as a summary of why FT2's position is unstable regardless of the merit of the actual complaints I have to say that Joshua has summed this up well. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Generally agree. Viridae ^Talk 23:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Moreover: FT2 is still denying that his delivering the Orangemarlin verdict proved that he committed a severe error of judgement. [7] This together with the non-recusement nonsense (which he tried to discuss away by saying he had not thought about it) makes it very clear what the real problem is: FT2's infallibility coupled with his constitutional inability to be biased make him the last person who should be judging about others. The Orangemarlin delivery and the SlimVirgin non-recusal are easily verifiable and can't be discussed away. The other matters discussed in this RFC are harder to judge, but overall they seem to confirm the problem. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Hans and Moreschi especially. His lack of any self-criticism is startling, and not appropriate for an Arb. The OM case should have been clear and the Arbs should have asked him to step down. "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.". Verbal chat 12:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. I'd word what Hans said differently (incapability of admitting error and inability to recognize his own biases), but if I'm reading him right agree with his summary of the most important points here. GRBerry 16:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, the OM issue not simply a miscommunication or an error in the method of delivery as other views purport. I may put together my own outside view on that situation. If anyone think the detailed analysis there would be either enlightening or irrelevant let me know.--BirgitteSB 18:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good and fair summary of the major problems. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Shot info (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse MBisanz ^talk 14:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by MBisanz

When I first heard of this issue in mid-2008, I assumed it was a highly private matter that had concluded under normal circumstances. Everyone with knowledge of privacy matters (the oversighters and arbcom for instance) were not publicly calling for anything, so it was rather easy to dismiss concerns from people who did not have access to those tools. As time went on though, more and more concerns came to light, and were not answered in a satisfactory matter. Even into December 2008 I held out hope that some highly complex privacy issue was all that stood in the way of explaining something that seemed rather simple (the who, what, when, and where of the oversights in question). However, I now must join the chorus of those saying FT2 needs to explain, in simple terms, what he did and knew and when.

That David has come forward and explained his part, Jimbo has explained his knowledge of events, and at least one oversighter has given out a copy of the log is encouraging to the extent of those who are trusted with handling oversight compliance actually functioning in their role. That it took so long for what appears to an outsider to be a simple matter is concerning, but that is for another time and place. I therefore add to the call that there is no matter more important for FT2 to perform on Wikipedia at this time other than to respond to the questions laid out in this RFC.

Users who endorse this summary:

MBisanz ^talk 00:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fritzpoll (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Karanacs (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Dtobias

Do I understand David correctly that it is his and Jimbo's position that a valid use of revision deletion (if not necessarily oversight) is to remove things from an editor's own past history that he is now embarrassed about, because a critic is referring to them? This hardly seems like a reasonable thing to do in a site predicated on openness and transparency. In the BADSITES wars of a couple of years ago, Gerard had a position more sane and reasonable than many, but here he's just fanning the flames of hysteria, "Look what those evil, evil attack sites are making us do!"

Users who endorse this summary:

*Dan T.* (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe David's actual argument is that the edits may have revealed private information about FT2 and were thus being used to invade FT2's privacy, but, if so, I still find this reasoning to be problematic and not necessarily supported by evidence. Cla68 (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hiding something improperly is a great way to destroy trust. Jehochman ^Talk 03:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Want to give your critics free ammunition? Make it look like you have something to hide. Friday (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TotientDragooned (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Giggy (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--NE2 07:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse --Duk 19:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that this oversight could/should be construed to have been done to help a candidate in an ArbCom election?!?! Endorse. Paul Beardsell (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pomte 05:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by ScienceApologist

This doesn't matter. None of this matters. Content matters. If anyone's conduct has ended up adversely affecting encyclopedia content, then we should take them to task. But the way this RfC is going it looks like it's a bunch of people caught up in a contest to decide who is the biggest and bestest Wikipedian. That's the stupidest contest I can imagine. I suggest the people who are most involved take a deep breath, take a step back, think about which encyclopedia articles were affected by this drama, and then let us know. If they cannot point to specific problems, then bury the hatchet.

Users who endorse this summary:

I'm still trying to figure out who has enough time to read and comprehend all this crap. Powers ^T 17:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Summary

FT2 has resigned his seat on the arbitration committee, until such time as he can receive (in his words) "a fair hearing with appropriate gravitas." See Open letter from FT2. This did not result in the immediate closure of the RfC because the resignation has not been made explicitly permanent. However, Jimbo Wales has stated: "My view is that he has resigned, honorably, and that he may run for office again in the future." See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/FT2#View by Jimbo Wales. Therefore this RfC can be held to have accomplished its goal, and can be closed.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 19:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.