Bishonen indef-blocks FT2, Holy crap, he hasn't been desysopped by Jimbo Options

[Anonymous editor]

Link

Noticeboard

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor:

[Peter Damian]

Not one significant thing you have said about your actions of December from then till now has been truthful.[list]
[*] You claimed you "never" alleged participation. Quick test, you called Radiant! "another" dog lover. If he was "another" practitioner, whom did you believe/claim was the first?

I have said many times I bitterly regretted that remark, made in a moment of anger, and a number of other remarks made between Dec 5-6.

You claimed you were blocked by admins who subjected you to a "hate" campaign", but the truth is all you were asked to do was to stop acting up. You were unblocked on giving your word you would do so. Even your final block of December 2007 was to be unblocked on reasonable conditions. Would you categorize that as a "hate campaign"?

Poisonous messages were being left on a group IP containing my real name. As I've said many times, and as you should know. The final block conditions were not made public, but were in an email from Scribe.

[*] You claimed the edit was being used as evidence, and was deleted to prevent its use, but omitted to mention it was also being used in a blog post to "activist sites" and "organizations" (plural) where you were "spreading the word" as a means to identify a target. You then tried to claim it was removed to hide evidence, rather than the reality which was to prevent defamation. So... did you not think that other copies of your blog post might still be circulating...? Or is defamation and harassment just a game to you?

I have explained the chronology many times, to you, to Arbcom and many others. The blog was quickly deleted (evening of the 6th Dec, from memory, I can verify exactly, later, and I notified Scribe who can confirm).

Can you reconcile your current claim ("only one outside site"), with your prior claim to have already contacted "organizations" plural? You were asked where you had posted it to (by WJB, same post) and preferred to stay blocked than to answer and withdraw the matter. You broke your word repeatedly. Anyone reading your words is quite entitled to assume anything from SPCA to ALF, and multiple sites and groups... and probably did. Do you think they were wrong to do so?

I said, if you read my post properly, that I had made contact with only one site. I.e. sent a message and received a reply. ASAIRS is defunct, as I am sure you know.

And so on, and so on. You're mendacious, Peter. You fabricate and lie like some people fart - obnoxiously, habitually, loudly, and badly. Name one reason your halo-polishing claim that you "only" contacted one site, should be trusted in the slightest.

And you have not answered my question about User:TBP. What is your view on the ethics of confronting poor Seus Hawkins by a sockpuppet like that?

[edit] I have also said many times that the account given by WJBScribe, which is evidently neutral, should be made public. If that is not possible, FT2 wo uld you accept a request for it to be sent privately to you?

Time time and time again you refer to these public unblock conditions placed on-wiki at a time when negotiations were going on in private. Can you not get that through your head? Scribe was happy that most of the conditions were met, except for the apology, and except for providing diffs to the edits. All this had been done, including the blog being deleted and THEN the oversights happened. This must be the fourth time I have explained it to you, yet you still continue with this theme?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[FT2]

[*] You claimed you "never" alleged participation. Quick test, you called Radiant! "another" dog lover. If he was "another" practitioner, whom did you believe/claim was the first?

I have said many times I bitterly regretted that remark, made in a moment of anger, and a number of other remarks made between Dec 5-6.

I'm sure you do, but your personal regrets aren't what I'm asking.

Did you 1) make claims at any time of criminal sexual abuse, and then 2) spend most of 2008 explicitly lying by claiming you had never done so? Is it also not true that far from having any "regret", bitter or otherwise, you were busy continuing to imply this to other people as late as 16-17 September 2008 when you wrote Jimbo "I have not speculated about his private life" and Jimbo replied "You just did, in this very email thread".

(This referred to your email of Sept 16, "I don't care what he gets up to in his own time", I believe -- if you were not still implying, why would you need to "not care"?)

You claimed you were blocked by admins who subjected you to a "hate" campaign", but the truth is all you were asked to do was to stop acting up. You were unblocked on giving your word you would do so. Even your final block of December 2007 was to be unblocked on reasonable conditions. Would you categorize that as a "hate campaign"?

Poisonous messages were being left on a group IP containing my real name. As I've said many times, and as you should know. The final block conditions were not made public, but were in an email from Scribe.

That's also not an answer. The "poisonous messages" can be seen in your block log. They were this and this. Evidence of a "hate campaign"? Laughable. Not that you would ever know what a "very nasty hate campaign" was, right? Do you still want to claim this was accurate? You haven't shown a solitary word to that effect.

You'll need more than "someone at work might have seen my block log" to support this complete fabrication of a "very nasty hate campaign". There was - but you were the one doing it, weren't you?

[*] You claimed the edit was being used as evidence, and was deleted to prevent its use, but omitted to mention it was also being used in a blog post to "activist sites" and "organizations" (plural) where you were "spreading the word" as a means to identify a target. You then tried to claim it was removed to hide evidence, rather than the reality which was to prevent defamation. So... did you not think that other copies of your blog post might still be circulating...? Or is defamation and harassment just a game to you?

I have explained the chronology many times, to you, to Arbcom and many others. The blog was quickly deleted (evening of the 6th Dec, from memory, I can verify exactly, later, and I notified Scribe who can confirm).

Not an answer. Did you at least tell people that you were also using that same edit to identify your defamation target to multiple "activist sites" and "organizations", or at the least, that you had openly told multiple people you had done so? Like hell you did. Don't you think if you had made that clear instead of trying to avoid acknowledging it, some people might have had a rather different view of it? Of course they would.

But you didn't want that, did you? You continued claiming the edit was removed to hide evidence, or to bias the election. You spun conspiracy theories about how it was removed, all the time knowing it had in fact been used to create serious defamation and that (rather than anything else) was probably the reason.

Can you reconcile your current claim ("only one outside site"), with your prior claim to have already contacted "organizations" plural? You were asked where you had posted it to (by WJB, same post) and preferred to stay blocked than to answer and withdraw the matter. You broke your word repeatedly. Anyone reading your words is quite entitled to assume anything from SPCA to ALF, and multiple sites and groups... and probably did. Do you think they were wrong to do so?

I said, if you read my post properly, that I had made contact with only one site. I.e. sent a message and received a reply. ASAIRS is defunct, as I am sure you know.

"I have contacted the relevant organisations". You do recognize a plural when you write one, don't you? And past tense? Are you saying this post was a deliberate lie to the community, then? Was this one supposed to be a lie, too? Intended to cause others to take you more seriously, or to over-react? You succeeded, didn't you. You indirectly caused many people to take it "seriously", all right. Like a WMF oversighter, me, Giano, people who read your posts, most of the admins you spoke to, and Jimbo himself.

You know what they do here if you shout "Bomb!" in an airport? Even if you claim it wasn't that serious later or you didn't really have one? They rip your balls off, Damian, if you have any, and lock you up anyway. Either way you're guilty - you meant it, or you're a fool.

And so on, and so on. You're mendacious, Peter. You fabricate and lie like some people fart - obnoxiously, habitually, loudly, and badly. Name one reason your halo-polishing claim that you "only" contacted one site, should be trusted in the slightest.

And you have not answered my question about User:TBP. What is your view on the ethics of confronting poor Seus Hawkins by a sockpuppet like that?

"Poor Suess". My heart is dripping pathos right now. Do you really think anyone here wears their heart on their sleeve? You probably knew the background on TBP and Suess (just looked up to check I have the right incidents) and knew she was an SPA canvasser all along, but still try to push a case here because it suits you to portray her that way; you also apparently find it easier to focus on accounts involved and ignore the content. This is Emotional Cliches #101, Peter, "Make A Martyr Of Them". You lied (according to Thatcher's assessment) about Phdarts too which was rather transparent ("Later, he admitted knowing").


Do you really want to be flagellated for sin, like your fanatic namesake? And a mistress to "punish" you for being naughty? Do you like making sordid libels like this? Have you got issues around sex like your namesake? He liked a touch of the whip and punishment too, didn't he? You're a crap liar Peter, and that's been your approach right up to date - do it, then deny it while still doing it.

You offer no real response, no compunction, and you sought to mislead others to back your campaign. A token crocodile tear of "bitter regret" that's as likely maudlin self-pity for doing it so badly, and zero regret for the deeds you did. You lied - badly and loudly. Isn't that true? Do you yet have even one reason why your claim that you "only" contacted one site, should be trusted in the slightest?

This post has been edited by FT2:

[Giano]

Do you really want to be flagellated for sin, like your fanatic namesake? And a mistress to "punish" you for being naughty? Do you like making sordid libels like this? Have you got issues around sex like your namesake? He liked a touch of the whip and punishment too, didn't he? You're a crap liar Peter, and that's been your approach right up to date - do it, then deny it while still doing it.

It's a funny thing, hysterical in fact, and only just struck me, that all the time FT2 was being wrongly promoted as that rather underdressed massochistic gentleman, in the leather thong and ornamentation, Peter Damian's alter ego was exactly that sort of person. That's rather a perceptive point FT2, and kinda scary that no one noticed it before. Shudder, suddenly feels cold in here.

Giano

This post has been edited by Giano:

[FT2]

It's a funny thing, hysterical in fact, and only just struck me, that all the time FT2 was being wrongly promoted as that rather underdressed massochistic gentleman, in the leather thong and ornamentation, Peter Damian's alter ego was exactly that sort of person. That's rather a perceptive point FT2, and kinda scary that no one noticed it before. Shudder, suddenly feels cold in here.

Giano

It's a pity you woke up so fucking late Giano. Apologies for the swear, but I've had a year of this bs and exactly like Poetlister suddenly people are going "ooohhhhhhh......"; I'm not exactly applauding. We have some slow learners, or what?

(Except KM who I'm sure knew it all along and likely thrived on watching. Popcorn any good, hun?)

And more a pity you tied yourself onto the fanatic's bandwagon - he leads, you gallop, right?

This post has been edited by FT2:

[Giano]

It's a funny thing, hysterical in fact, and only just struck me, that all the time FT2 was being wrongly promoted as that rather underdressed massochistic gentleman, in the leather thong and ornamentation, Peter Damian's alter ego was exactly that sort of person. That's rather a perceptive point FT2, and kinda scary that no one noticed it before. Shudder, suddenly feels cold in here.

Giano

It's a pity you woke up so fucking late Giano. Apologies for the swear, but I've had a year of this bs and exactly like Poetlister suddenly people are going "ooohhhhhhh......"; I'm not exactly applauding. We have some slow learners, or what?

(Except KM who I'm sure knew it all along and likely thrived on watching. Popcorn any good, hun?)

And more a pity you tied yourself onto the fanatic's bandwagon - he leads, you gallop, right?

Damain was wrong to threaten you in the manner that he did, but the fact you are in this predicament is largely your own damn fault. Qui tacet consentire videtur. The fact you have belatedly decided to set the record straight is good, but don't blame others for not denying what you could not be bothered to.

Giano

[FT2]

Damain was wrong to threaten you in the manner that he did, but the fact you are in this predicament is largely your own damn fault. Qui tacet consentire videtur. The fact you have belatedly decided to set the record straight is good, but don't blame others for not denying what you could not be bothered to.

Giano

Live and learn. Unless you're a sociopathic jerk who could care less.

A few drama-dealers cut the actual pharma products with cheap toxic household chemicals of salacious innuendo, then passed them out on the wiki-street as valuable and informative to people who took their word on it. And who cares who gets hurt because drugs.... are... such... fuuuun. Yeah.

This has shown all the ethics of the entrenched narcotics dealer: "who cares as long as I get my rake-off". The morality of the mob. And the back-pedaling is about as transparent as an Enron board-room meeting...... or a fetishist's saranwrap.

I'll admit I underestimated the need to defend myself. I thought it was all too inanely stupid and chose quiet dignity instead. "Let them go and they'll let you go", or "Don't react and they'll tire of it". It was quiet on-wiki and there's no reason to import dramas into the project. I figured on a neutral encyclopedia of all places, personal stuff was best ignored. I was really badly wrong, wasn't I? It wasn't dignity, but punch-bag, that I created. But nothing that I underestimated, nothing, holds a candle to the willing urge of some to have a party on tenuous grounds at others' expense -- or to wittingly or unwittingly endorse malicious hearsay for kicks. Mock my wordiness if you must, but I tell you this, I never considered hearsay and preconceptions, and I considered every arbitration case in full recognition that it would impact real people and each had the best I could give.

[Docknell]

Damain was wrong to threaten you in the manner that he did, but the fact you are in this predicament is largely your own damn fault. Qui tacet consentire videtur. The fact you have belatedly decided to set the record straight is good, but don't blame others for not denying what you could not be bothered to.

Giano

Live and learn. Unless you're a sociopathic jerk who could care less.

A few drama-dealers cut the actual pharma products with cheap toxic household chemicals of salacious innuendo, then passed them out on the wiki-street as valuable and informative to people who took their word on it. And who cares who gets hurt because drugs.... are... such... fuuuun. Yeah.

This has shown all the ethics of the entrenched narcotics dealer: "who cares as long as I get my rake-off". The morality of the mob. And the back-pedaling is about as transparent as an Enron board-room meeting...... or a fetishist's saranwrap.

I'll admit I underestimated the need to defend myself. I thought it was all too inanely stupid and chose quiet dignity instead. "Let them go and they'll let you go", or "Don't react and they'll tire of it". It was quiet on-wiki and there's no reason to import dramas into the project. I figured on a neutral encyclopedia of all places, personal stuff was best ignored. I was really badly wrong, wasn't I? It wasn't dignity, but punch-bag, that I created. But nothing that I underestimated, nothing, holds a candle to the willing urge of some to have a party on tenuous grounds at others' expense -- or to wittingly or unwittingly endorse malicious hearsay for kicks. Mock my wordiness if you must, but I tell you this, I never considered hearsay and preconceptions, and I considered every arbitration case in full recognition that it would impact real people and each had the best I could give.

OK nice bit of drama there FT2.

Could you please try to reconcile what you just said with your past actions in writing this (its mostly your piece of work) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...use/HeadleyDown

When you first came here, you accused me of being one of the people on that list you conflated. Anyone can access this information and check up on the diffs.

For the most part, the diffs seem to show editors working towards clarifying the NLP and the zoophilia articles with strong reference to peer reviewed studies and NOPV policies. They also seem to be avoiding defending themselves against your accusations.

They avoid defending themselves, just as you claim to have done, and at the same time they are getting blocked and banned left right and center. If you didn't "learn" from your own actions and accusations, then you would have to be utterly braindamaged. Basically, in light of your diffs, what you just wrote is utterly unbelievable.

There are also some really obvious outlandish accusations from yourself there, where you take totally unrelated personal attack accounts (different parts of the world according to the ip numbers) and try to associate them with critics of zoophilia and neurolinguistic programming.

So it seems quite odd that you now throw claims of people spreading malicious hearsay and of you being ignorant and naive of behaviour at WP. You are indeed your own worst enemy. Your little drama just backfired on itself and clearly shows how sociopathic you are as an editor and admin.

Docknell