Heyyaz,

Looks like FT2 has put his name forward again. And he's got quite a lot of interesting things to say, including more on PoetHorde, certain alternate accounts and more on stuff that happened behind the scenes back in 2008.

Edit: And including about those 'oversighted edits' and the OrangeMarlin affair.

Pop one:

Mobster boss OrangeMarlin is/was a cunt.

Pop two:

So is commissioner Jpgordon.

Funny how OM suddenly vanished without trace when the recession hit. I guess that's what happens when you now make your money supplying the medical profession. (talking about off-Wiki accounts).

What does he have to say concerning his views on bestiality as a healthy form of sexual expression and his desire to make WP a resource that will provide young people with "issues" on the matter with a resource that will give them support and encouragement if they are considering having sex with animals?

why don't u ask him? you can submit your own questions to ArbCom candidates, you know.

are you afraid he'll post a 3,000 word, rambling and inpenetrable response that doesn't really answer the question?

I asked him directly at least 12 times if he thought Pedophiles had the "right" to edit WMF projects. He never answered.

How about someone asking him that for his ArbCom bid, especially seeing ArbCom's anti pedophile stance?

You will get at his libertarian extremism via his views on bestiality on which he has a demonstrated record even without leaving WR. This ought to be sufficient to thwart his "election" without giving him the chance to take advantage of his lack of a record (AFAIK) on pedophilia. I think you can extrapolate for yourself where his "going bravely where no man has gone before" on the frontiers of human sexuality might take him on that issue, too. Of course this is Wikipedia where bizarre and repulsive views might be tolerated to an extent unimaginable elsewhere.

From what I've heard, OM did not vanish without a trace. Like several of the editors involved with the Intelligent Design episode, he apparently changed his account name in an attempt to escape the stigma of having been a member of the notorious "ID Cab", one of the most bullying and facist cabals ever to disgrace Wikipedia with its presence.　　He appears to have been successful to some extent, because I haven't see his new account name revealed here on WR yet, and I don't know what it is.

Anyway, all questions of FT2's idealogical philosophies aside, he really, really needs to work on using the English language in a concise manner to explain his ideas. Until he does that, he really shouldn't be running for ArbCom. FT2, I know you're reading this. Practice being short and concise. YOU CAN DO IT.

Will Alison or someone else ask each of the other Arbcom candidates if they would be happy to serve alongside FT2? And would those candidates who have accounts here like to answer that?

At the moment his lengthy "extended statement" seems like a way of burying facts if they are there at all.

I agree with that. It's most important to be as unambiguous as possible of course, but there is so much to read on Wikipedia that being relatively concise is an invaluable skill, and one worth the self-training (although self-editing has its notorious pitfalls). Unless blustering is your thing (or the thing) I suppose.

Re OrangeMarlin:

So it was a 'Right to vanish' without disclosure? I wonder where you heard that. There really are no proper rules on Wikipedia are there. It's simply about whether you are likely to get blocked or not, and how long it will last if you do.

OM is such a naturally aggressive man, his new identity should stand out like a sore thumb. Unless he's being extremely careful I suppose. What he would love to be is an admin - so maybe that ambition is keeping him in check.

The OM/ FT2 thing was a typical battle of wiki armies. It's why they both came out pretty untarnished from it if I remember (I read up on it all after the event). OM in his newly protected state did very well out of it - it was a ticket to be as abusive as he pretty much liked, with his kiss-arse 'mentors' winging-in immediately if fool from the 'ignorant masses' had the gall to stand up to his 'personality'. It's the people who don't (or won't) support-build on WP that really have to worry about their actions.

There is a triple threat that stops Wikipedia being a reasonable and objective encyclopedia: desire, ability and structure (primarily being the style guides, and those who control them). OM had serious issues with all three, and when he was involved in the abuse of them it was always to remove stuff he simply didn't want to see on Wikipedia at all. In a sense, the Civility thing worked like a smoke-screen. It's that over-used label again, 'great content editor with civility issues', as if the two somehow 'naturally' come together. Those 'anti heroes' are always guns ablazing on that infernal Featured Article machine too.

Interesting there is no mention of the User:TBP account in his disclosure here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/ACE2...ended_statement

The TBP thread is here http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&p=99940

I wonder.... if brevity is the soul of wit, does the inverse hold true?

Vandenburg getting into a scrap with him now.



Does anyone have any idea what this is about?



What is all this?

FT2 is an early riser?

100% respectable and non-abusive nor controversial ex-Arb Sam Blacketer enters for then win.

All explained. See below.

FT2 once explained that it took him a long time to craft his answers because he was fearful of misinterpretations. His longwinded responses were no more helpful in that regard as far as I could see.

His inability to communicate concisely and unambiguously are of themselves reasons why he is unsuited to be in any position of authority or judgement.

I think the inability is more explained by this.

None of his colleagues at the arbcom really seem to like him very much. JV calls him a liar, and the Wizardboy doesn't seem to care for him much either, going by his election guide.

I do hope he gets elected. The drama quotient has been getting rather low lately.

Unfortunately the ballot seems to be secret this year, so we are missing the usual jockeying and tactical voting and drama. Hopefully that will change when it is announced.

My 'winning team' is FT2, Giano, Sandstein, Off2RioRob and Harej.

Yeah, God help us all.

But maybe a terrible group will work out for the best. The shocking status quo of bad administership (for example) ---brickwall----rfc/u----brickwall-----------------------------arbcom may not be able to survive it. Something may actually give somewhere.

I'm not sure it's been expressed in this thread, but Off2RioRob, although a natural-born kiss-ass (between appearing 'tough' via the typical teenage snotty rudeness), is not - and genuinely never would be able to be - an admin. His block log is far too big and he can't keep it empty, and he has made too-many fair-minded editor enemies - ie he has made the mistake of making himself unpopular before becoming an admin, and not afterwards when you can do and say what you like.

How can they have a system where a nominee can bypass adminship via a secret ballot at arbcom level? Nobody seems to care what mediation experience there is in off2riorob's case, which only betrays what most of them really feel about the job.

The whole candidature process is atrocious - it's far worse than the less-than-ideal Request for Adminship, and these people are supposed to be the bottom line on difficult issues - although nothing but stupid hyper-dramas ever actually get up to their marble floor, admittedly.

They are basically hiring the new cast of Wikipedia Dynasty.

What I am hearing through various channels is that this election will make or break Wikipedia.

Everyone is gonna' say that. The vast majority of editors don't care, because ArbCom doesn't affect them. Not a single article I have ever edited has been remotely connected with an ArbCom case, for example.

Very true. Arbcom is highly over-rated. Honestly, I can't believe how much some people give a damn about nothing.

Well, something like ArbCom is necessary for some fields, but for a great many of them--roads, film, video games, counties, education, meteorology, paleontology, on and on--regular dispute resolution works just fine. It's not surprising a comparatively small portion of editors bother voting.

913 channels of bullshit to choose from?

You are one sick bastard.

lol, wikipedia is where anyone can wander in off the internet and make up some plausible sounding user name, do a bunch of busy work for a couple of months and then play like they are managing an encyclopedia.

That guy stinks of gaming-the-system-for-power.

Obviously an experienced user, 7,000 edits in the first 2 months (343 edits just yesterday),
almost no useful factual edits, generates lots of dramah, pwns Wikiproject East Asia,
and hands out barnstars to an IP address.
Whatta freak. I smell a sock of someone caballish.
(not that anyone cares, of course. )

Obviously an insane user.

Well we finally have an explanation of the TBP account from FT2. FT2 drafted the article on Hani Miletski, emailed it to TBP, who then posted it. That is why FT2 claimed the article as his own.

Mangaard would have been plausible as a (reasonably common) Scandihoovian surname, but Manguard is right out.

Moreover any candidate with more user-talk edits than article edits should be disqualified summarily.


Except, this "explanation" is bull to the power of shit, and everyone knows it.

No I think most people accept it.

I simply don't believe that, once people have clues to remind them, that they don't remember what went on. A classic FT2 answer which puts in masses of detail and becomes less convincing rather than more.

Wouldn't it have been more convincing to say "I don't remember the exact details as it was a long time ago, but I think between us we drafted an article offline before it was posted, then tweaked it." He either worked in this style a few times, hence it was an unmemorable incident - and he could point to other examples; or it was unusual, and therefore it would be unconvincing for this to be forgotten. It is also less convincing because this was about an article he claimed authorship of so at some point he did remember writing it.

Selective memory is not a good trait for someone sitting in judgement.

I've edited several such articles without actually meaning to, so that seems nearly as dubious as Zoloft's "I've never been reverted (!)" claim. Check again.


It's possible "most people" (given the benefit of secret balloting) have chosen to smile and nod in hopes that FT2 will shut the fuck up already.

It's not convincing to regulars here, but I think it's convincing to many Wikipedians.

I like the way he thought of the story about sending a full version by email. Then he obviously realised that this wouldn't do, because TBP actually adds a significant chunk http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=52708575 8 minutes into the edit. So in his explanation FT2 adds details like "I then emailed him copyedits or extra information".

It's patent nonsense, but clearly most Wikipedians are taken in by it, or he wouldn't have survived so long.

Is there some database tool where I can check to see if any of my edits were reverted?

Seems to me that if I've never been warned, I'm fairly vanilla. I do remember making spelling/grammar fixes to Liancourt Rocks (T-H-L-K-D), and nobody cared.

My deleted edits are in articles that went through AfDs and were zapped.

"Manguard" is about as Scandinavian as ......"Kristen" is a girls name.

As for the Hani Miletski-article; why, oh why do you ever make a draft of an article...and then email it, (out of view) to another user to post??

In my wp-history I only know of (or rather; suspect!) one other case: user A (already known as a harasser of his enemies on wp, having published attacks-articles on them...and being under special "watch" due to this..)...emails editor B (known to share A's strong political views) ....just afterwards B then publish a BLP of one of A's strongest opponents on wp. (This was the only BLP that editor B ever wrote..)

Hmm. Fishy. Stinks.

(And I say this, having found that cooperating with other similar-minded editors on articles is one of the most fun thing there is. But, if you have nothing to hide; you make a sub-page on wp, and start working. Or did wp ever charge you for making draft-pages??)

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.

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

Well, I suspect he would get up with the chickens and other farm animals.

And where did your morning omelet come from?

Vandenburg is certainly going for it, but I'm not sure where it is going.



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 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.

I can't imagine how.

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.

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.

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.