This story has appeared in a number of different posts. I have arranged them below in date order with an indication of what they contain. The story in summary.

Sep 2008: FT2 sends a truly horrific email to a sockmaster, threatening he will contact employers, police, unless the sockmaster complies with demands. Cary Bass is copied, Jimbo and other WMF members are claimed to be in the know.

Feb 2010: comes to the attention of the whole committee. Everyone except Coren is horrified. “Not unlike Jimmy, I think this was a reasonable attempt at giving him an "out"."

November 2010: FT2 bids for re-election. The committee realises to its horror that they must now make the Anvil public. How can they explain that they did absolutely nothing?

December 2010: Fortunately someone else finds a comparatively harmless way of blackmailing FT2 into resigning. Collective sigh of relief.

What are the issues? The sockmaster is probably one of the most hated people on WR, but shall we leave that aside? An administrator and arbitrator sends a threatening email to a sockmaster, threatening to contact employers, police, unless the sockmaster complies with demands. Question: was this even legal? Were WMF aware of the contents. Later on, the Committee is made aware of the mail. Universal horror and disgust (except for one). But why was nothing done? Why did they not think it grounds for desysop? Even later, they consider publishing a summary of the email in order to prevent FT2 being re-elected. Question: why didn't they do this. Or rather, why didn't they just permaban FT2's account and blank the page? Finally, they find another way to force his resignation. Question: why did they continue sitting on this very bad thing?

It's nothing to do with the sockmaster, nor with FT2. FT2 was clearly and obviously out of control and should have been dealt with in Sep 2008, after the contents become known to a narrow circle of adminstrators. His behaviour is irrelevant. The question is the behaviour of the Committee over the years. Lying, blackmailing and covering up.


------------------------------------------------------------
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34220 Sep 2008 Gerard: “It'll take a falling anvil from the Foundation”

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34245 Feb 2010 – how the Anvil email came to the attention of the Committee.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=278722 The post containing the Anvil itself - “I'll probably end up ripping your ego apart”

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=278725 Bednarz “This committee is not in the business of telling users that we will "rip
apart their ego."

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34222 November 2010 – FT2 asks the committee to sanction his election statement.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34158 November 2010 – the Committee, desperate to prevent FT2’s re-election, prepares a statement about the anvil mail for publication on-wiki.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34116 Decemer 2010 – to the relief of all, Wjbscribe steps in and forces the resignation by another means. Lying is so much better than blackmail.

Sadly, none of this is news. It was widely discussed at the time. We just didn't see proof of the Arbcom way of handling this major scandal before.

And Arbcom continues on its merry, ass-flapping way, and nobody outside the Wiki-orbit seems to care.

You see why I don't edit WP? It always had an edge of crazy, now it's just plain done.

This was not the same incident. That block was because FT2 wasn't giving any answers, and the question was a different one.

I first heard about the Anvil November last year. As I say, Arbcom was leaking like a sieve at the time.

Peter, that is hardly an unbiased report. 'Anvil' seems to be you own buzzword on WR, and you've written this in rather a controlled way.

There is real irony here regarding you and FT2. Given the level of 'personal involvement' of FT2 with the appalling Poetlister sockmaster (which seems to be the reason he went OTT in the anvil letter - and yes it does matter who it is), are you not very 'personally involved' with FT2 and thus are going a bit OTT yourself?

Poetlister has got under almost everyone's skin, though there are still clearly a few he has on his side, like Adb it seems. It is simply what he does, and possibly what he is ultimately compelled to achieve, despite the initial control kicks in having people deceived by his lies. He also clumsily used his socks for the boring old reason of gaming content, despite being an administrator of course. At least FT2 properly stood up to him, even if he was OTT in the way he went about it.

And I can't see any great legal issues with what FT2 did, apart from broad 'harassment' ones perhaps, which simply wouldn't stand up in court given the circumstances. Proper blackmail is a serious crime for sure, but less 'extreme' cases are often actually notoriously hard to 'bring to justice', typically as so many things have to be taken into account. I really think it is pushing it here, as it is no way as 'clear cut' as you are trying to paint it as. I do think arbcom should observe a general 'duty of care', but even that isn't obvious in where it lies here.

This is all my opinion of course. If you want to change my mind you'll have to create a more convincing 'guide' than your one above!

Agreed, there was probably nothing legally actionable in that email.

But here's the thing. Arbitrators frequently act independently, because it is too clumsy or time-consuming to discuss every little thing with the entire group. They need good judgement when doing so. FT2 sent an early draft of this email to several people for review, but the final version was substantially different and much more threatening. No matter who the target of the letter was; no matter how badly they abused your trust, would you be comfortable having a person who would write this,

running another major investigation on his own?

BZZZT! David Gerard first used the term "anvil" in a mail to ArbComm, which Peter cited. A large heavy object dropped on someone.
Dealing with the insane tends to drive one crazy, so that it's difficult to tease out what is what. Peter's comment seems reasonably sober to me. Any interpretation is "story," stories are always separated, to one degree or another, from what actually happened.
Abd, at your service. Of all my names, it is the most real.

We can see how these on-line discussions go. Because I comment with what seems favorable to Poetlister, I'm seen as "being on his side." Then what I write is discounted because of the obvious bias. Which is, of course, circular. The conclusion of bias is ready and obvious because how could I otherwise support someone so "appalling"? But "appalling" implies a trait of Poetlister, when, instead, it is descriptive of the one who is appalled.
Remind me not to engage PC as a therapist, he appears to believe his own imagination way too much.
I've seen allegations of this, but the serious ban discussions have been singularly evidence-free as to anything relevant. Rather, they consist of statements like the above: speculations, simplified conclusions not supported by evidence, and a lack of balanced perspective.

The thinking is primitive: if there is disruption, there must be a disruptor, and therefore, since multiple people are upset, Poetlister should be banned. What I am supporting is not Poetlister but the freedom of editors to act within boundaries set only by necessity. Communities do have the right to set standards -- I'm not Moulton -- but have a responsibility to ensure that these standards are necessary and allow adequate freedom so that the overall purpose of the community is enhanced, not curtailed.

Procedures and methods have been proposed with respect to "disruptive editors" such as Poetlister and others -- including myself -- but are rejected out of a belief that the editors are the problem. If they are the problem, why bother? I've been showing why, but it will take time.
You don't think there is a legal problem with threatening a person with humiliation and damage if they don't comply with your demand, a demand that has no basis in law, but is only your private agenda? There is liability here, if Poetlister chose to take action.
Whether or not this would rise to the standard of blackmail as a criminal offense is unclear to me, I've been thinking of it as a civil offense.
The "guilt" of ArbComm here is more difficult to establish, and this is really just another example of how ArbComm has tolerated high levels of blatant misbehavior on the part of insiders, while allowing, and sometimes even initiating, major sanctions for jaywalking with respect to ordinary editors.

Really the problem here is that FT2 used blackmail to extort a promise not to sockpuppet on an Internet site. The fact that the consideration sought was intrinsically so valueless means that the action was probably not legally actionable, but it's still morally repulsive and FT2 should have been excoriated for it immediately and stripped of his authority. Extortion is ugly even when it doesn't reach the formal elements of the crime. Anyone who agreed with FT2's course of conduct in this matter, which would appear to be both Coren and Jimbo, from my reading of the archives, and possibly others, can be assumed to have no sensible moral compass. The fact that one of these people is in control of Wikipedia's overall moral compass bodes very badly for the project indeed.

[quote name='Abd' date='Sat 2nd July 2011, 5:27pm' post='278791']
BZZZT! David Gerard first used the term "anvil" in a mail to ArbComm, which Peter cited. A large heavy object dropped on someone.
[quote]

Don't be such a total prick Abd. On WR this was Peter's story - that is largely my whole point. You are childishly trying to chase everything I write now because we disagree on Poetlister's identity. Do you realise what a twat that makes you?

I see that you've taken it upon yourself to answer all the 'points' for him now he's gone. Does that mean your going to be twice as prolific now?

Not exactly. The action sought was full disclosure of socks, accompanied with implications that he already knew all of them -- so don't dare omit any! -- plus a threat was included to watch like a hawk, into the indefinite future, he supposedly wouldn't get away with anything, and FT2 sought the checkuser tool so that he could personally make sure.
It was excessive, for sure. People justify excessive actions by attachments to results. I think that in FT2's situation, he believed that what Poetlister was doing was so horrible that preventing Poetlister from continuing was worth, even, the sacrifice of his own privileges, he knew that what he was doing was, shall we say, unusual.

To my mind "excoriated" is just another part of the same mindset, a model that involves punishment and banishment. "Revealed" would be more appropriate, so that people know what is going on. Some may condemn, some may condone, but without the truth, that part of the community that is functional cannot operate. Functional consensus implies "informed consensus."
I do think that the elements of the crime were present, but that doesn't automatically mean that it's prosecutable. Prosecutors have priorities and may be disinclined to take on something that seems trivial *to them.* Hence when I've referred to liability, I meant civil liability. And whether or not it would be worth pursuing this would be related to the damage suffered by Poetlister, and that would come out in testimony, or be a private conversation between Poetlister and counsel.
Again, that's extreme. Let's say that the moral compass wasn't functioning, maybe there was some magnet too close to it. People can be so distracted by their own concerns that they don't notice the elephant. "Hey, how come there are these piles of manure all over? Somebody must be vandalizing the place!"
It does, but this is not the critical problem. The problem is that the structure selects for incompetence of a certain kind, where competence is necessary to realize Wikipedia's fundamental mission. That competence is specialized, possibly, not necessarily common, but that it was even needed wasn't recognized, because of a certain mindset.

Gee, I always wanted to be a twat. I need to cherish the experience.

Or am I a "total prick"? How can I be that and a twat at the same time? Well, at least I can be close to both, isn't that fun?

PC, you're nuts. I'm not chasing you, tracking your contributions, not in the least. I get email notifications on topics where I've contributed, and I read the new posts, often, when I'm interested in the topic. I don't click on anything because it says "powercorrupts." If anything, I'd prefer to stay away. But, hey, it's there, so I respond.
I can't predict that. More likely, I'll be writing less, maybe much less.

There is a problem with pointing out the probable origin of the "Anvil" designation? What?

Was Poetlister here? Under what name? I'm always the last to know.

Poetlister had several accounts here, one of which was a moderator. As I recall, this account suddenly departed, blanking hundreds of discussion threads and posts by his other identities, and causing Somey all kinds of grief trying to get things restored.

There may be something in here, but it's 65 pages and I didn't take the time to read it all.

If there is a specific thread that discusses PoetGuy's history on WR specifically, I don't know where it is.

You've actually made a good point but I'm obliged to tell you to fuck yourself.

Thanks for the laugh.

The moderator's name was "Guy", which is why the individual is generally referred around here as "PoetGuy"; being a portmanteau of his best known WP and WR names (although he was likely most active on these pages as "Taxwoman"?) I don't seem to recall whether there was any discussion about the fact that his most senior WR ident was as a male, although he used female aliases in most other instances, but I think there should have been - just for the "what a petty fuckup he is" quotient.

If you see the entire world through a prism of distorted gender identity, maybe female=sympathy and attention but male=power. "Cato," his account on Wikiquote that got checkuser status, was also male, I think. Just 2p of psychoanalysis.

Ordinarily, that might be difficult, but it helps to be both a prick and a twat, I'm sure.

As to obligation, yeah, I'm a man as well. I feel your pain.

Bartender! Give this asshole some of today's swill. I think he needs it.