I gave the thread [AOBT] and this thread a thorough read best I can, I think the problem actually began from 213, where Ratimov appeared [out of the blue, if I may add my personal opinion] and shared his opinion about the pseudo-usefulness of the translations made by the group, which mostly done pro-bono.

I have to say his opinion is not without merit, I can see where this opinion came from, a concern that a service being translated could not help cater the needs and questions made by the readers. However, two things that worth mentioning here are: (1) the translation made by AOBT [pro bono, if I may add, though it's a bit irrelevant] are mostly about educating articles, not a service, and (2) they do follow ups with the member of the local boards, so I think the concern, though appreciated, was not really... necessary.

Even if a translated topic got neglected [let's assume, not sure if it really happens], one the purpose of the translation itself serve is as a bridge that gives, "opportunity to deal with the topic or to draw attention to the topic through these translations and to be a kind of starting point for further discussions in the native language." The AOBT are there to facilitate. I am sure if a platform or a service that got their article translated for free by them feel the need to hire someone to translate and manage the local communities, the AOBT are more than willing to step down.

Things got escalated [rather quickly] when Ratimov argued that a translated topic "needs to be supported, sometimes publishing some updates regarding the service or the operation of its individual components", which Gazeta pointed out that one of Ratimov's own translation did not meet this "standard".

Can things be dealt better? I believe, yes. As Learn Bitcoin said, the conflict start from post 224, when Gazeta pointed out and hand-fed Ratimov his own statement, and things snowballed ever since. I personally think [thus, naturally, it's my very own opinion] things can ended there and wouldn't come to this point if #225 were worded better... or #232.

---

Moving to the topic being asked in title, if Ratimov should [or should not] be in DT... due to... many reasons said on that impressive essay. I think one that's eligible to be weighted is the feedback he left. The plagiarism? I am not familiar with that case, and I am currently not in mood to dig that deep, but I think it's a common agreement and knowledge that the article was plagiarized, based on several people's words. Loophole aside, let's suppose it's true, then at best it warrant a red tag, not a tilde.

The feedback he left though, is retaliatory and false, baseless at best. Now that arguably warrant a tilde. Should it be given, though? By the time I began drafting my post, I can see that he still had that feedback, but I realized he removed it in between the time needed to finish this draft [I made this in between activities in real world, so... it took me hours]. If he still had it, I'll say yes, it's a trust abuse, but the fact that he's willing to retract them and apologize means he's willing to learn [of course, we can assume there are other possible reason behind that decision, but let's not dwell on that] and admit he made mistakes. I'll ignore his past sent feedback too, because [as I said previously] I am not that interested in digging dirt or chasing ghost of the past.

So, for now, I am refraining from the Tilde. However if future shows that the same situation happen again, then I think there's not much we can do.