Peter Damian change of tone, More honesty would be better Options

[FT2]

I forked my reply to the following, from its original thread, to not distract from that issue. I felt it badly needed a reply. Peter Damian posted as follows on the Taxwoman bit:

I'm sure that all the problems we have seen in Wikipedia to date derive from that source. Good work, FT2.
Best, Damian.

With respect, I'm not exactly naive. It is highly unlikely that your change from "FT2 is Stalins First Murderer" and "Let war commence" (WP: [1] [2] [3] [4] WR: [5] [6]) to "FT2 is great and really really did well" last week in the space of 6 hours was entirely genuine. Also the current "good work!" lays it on further. Not very surprisingly, all these started hours one side or the other of being banned. Unfortunately my impression is that there is still utter distrust, dislike, animosity there, probably more not less, and an intent to game good behavior until a case can be made for an unban. Call me a bad faith assumer, but it's rather transparent, considering that's how you gamed every other block in the past 9 months for the exact same actions.

I'm not "accusing" in this case, so much as just saying how I feel. Put bluntly, I'd feel more respect, to see it stated honestly. I don't handle insincerity (or apparent insincerity) or sycophancy well (both pretty much revolt me to the stomach) and this isn't sincere and is unlikely to be in 3 months, or 6, or even a year or two. If you truly want to resolve your feelings on things, then let's talk, not just fake the facade.

Sorry to be that blunt but I think it's for the best that I should be.

This post has been edited by FT2: Sun 14th September 2008, 3:56pm

[Kelly Martin]

FT2, the batteries in your sarcasm detector need replacing. Hope this helps.

[The Adversary]

Yupp, I thought Peter just forgot to insert the [/sarcasm] at the end

(FT2: I still would´t vote for you for dogcatcher... )

This post has been edited by The Adversary: Sun 14th September 2008, 3:51pm

[FT2]

This was not intended as sarcasm, and I'm not going to assume Peter was being sarcastic either. I don't tend to do sarcasm as a rule, or very rarely. So this is a statement of fact, to call something hidden out of hiding, say how I feel, and ask if the person concerned wants to handle it genuinely or not. Tautologically, he either will or won't.

This post has been edited by FT2: Sun 14th September 2008, 4:07pm

[Kelly Martin]

FT2, either you lie like a cheap rug, or you are completely incompetent to be an Arbitrator. Which is it?

[Peter Damian]

I forked my reply to the following, from its original thread, to not distract from that issue. I felt it badly needed a reply. Peter Damian posted as follows on the Taxwoman bit:

I'm sure that all the problems we have seen in Wikipedia to date derive from that source. Good work, FT2.
Best, Damian.

With respect, I'm not exactly naive. It is highly unlikely that your change from "FT2 is Stalins First Murderer" and "Let war commence" (WP: [1] [2] [3] [4] WR: [5] [6]) to "FT2 is great and really really did well" last week in the space of 6 hours was entirely genuine. Also the current "good work!" lays it on further. Not very surprisingly, all these started hours one side or the other of being banned. Unfortunately my impression is that there is still utter distrust, dislike, animosity there, probably more not less, and an intent to game good behavior until a case can be made for an unban. Call me a bad faith assumer, but it's rather transparent, considering that's how you gamed every other block in the past 9 months for the exact same actions.

I'm not "accusing" in this case, so much as just saying how I feel. Put bluntly, I'd feel more respect, to see it stated honestly. I don't handle insincerity (or apparent insincerity) or sycophancy well (both pretty much revolt me to the stomach) and this isn't sincere and is unlikely to be in 3 months, or 6, or even a year or two. If you truly want to resolve your feelings on things, then let's talk, not just fake the facade.

Sorry to be that blunt but I think it's for the best that I should be.

As the lady said, put your irony spectacles on. Actually it was just gentle teasing, FT2, perhaps you need some SOH spectacles?

As for talking, I'm very happy too, but there was a list of questions on the other thread which you never talked about - e.g. the User:TBP question.

As for 'gaming' the block, I noticed you said that on Wales's talk page also. What do you mean by 'gaming'? It was pretty universally agreed that I was the subject of some pretty bad, awful, unfair and quite arbitrary blocks. These were all (apart from the most recent one) rescinded within days. How is this 'gaming'?

[FT2]

FT2, either you lie like a cheap rug, or you are completely incompetent to be an Arbitrator. Which is it?

I don't find gaming and sarcasm is needed for the role, and presumption of sarcasm causes more problems than direct speech could have fixed.

More directly, we may have to differ on whether a drive to sarcasm is beneficial and essential for resolving difficult disputes between users. You clearly find it so, as you use it often. Forgive me if I don't find it any help at all. To me it seems that sarcasm is a last recourse when arguments are shallow and people much be persuaded by soundbites and emotional rhetoric. You may find those methods suit you, and they are indeed powerful tools, but I don't get on with them. C'est la vie.

This post has been edited by FT2: Sun 14th September 2008, 4:24pm

[Kelly Martin]

FT2, either you lie like a cheap rug, or you are completely incompetent to be an Arbitrator. Which is it?

I don't find gaming and sarcasm is needed for the role, and presumption of sarcasm causes more problems than direct speech could have fixed.

More directly, we may have to differ on whether a drive to sarcasm is beneficial and essential for resolving difficult disputes between users. You clearly find it so, as you use it often. Forgive me if I don't find it any help at all. To me it seems that sarcasm is a last recourse when arguments are shallow and people much be persuaded by soundbites and emotional rhetoric. You may find those methods suit you, and they are indeed powerful tools, but I don't get on with them. C'est la vie.

Incompetent. Got it.

[GlassBeadGame]

FT2, either you lie like a cheap rug, or you are completely incompetent to be an Arbitrator. Which is it?

I don't find gaming and sarcasm is needed for the role, and presumption of sarcasm causes more problems than direct speech could have fixed.

What the hell are you? I think if being on ArbCom means anything other than pleasing Mr. Wales surely it is necessary to have at least basic ability to parse human language on multiple levels for the purposes of discerning intent. Anyone who relies on spoken or written words to interpret evidence faces this challenge. You couldn't pass a Turing Test.

[FT2]

As the lady said, put your irony spectacles on. Actually it was just gentle teasing, FT2, perhaps you need some SOH spectacles?

As for talking, I'm very happy too, but there was a list of questions on the other thread which you never talked about - e.g. the User:TBP question.

As for 'gaming' the block, I noticed you said that on Wales's talk page also. What do you mean by 'gaming'? It was pretty universally agreed that I was the subject of some pretty bad, awful, unfair and quite arbitrary blocks. These were all (apart from the most recent one) rescinded within days. How is this 'gaming'?

Quick answers (still up to the eyebrows on the Poet case and then catching up at RFAR; other stuff needs to fit in as it can)...

• Sense of humor is used for gentle collegial ribbing. There's nothing collegial in your view, and I'm not inclined to go along with a fiction that there is.

• Matters on the other page got overtaken by Poet - sorting out a serious case like that and doing my core work is more of a priority, than undertaking optional extras like explaining things (especially bad-faith ones) that anyone who wished could go figure out for themselves.

• One kind of gaming is when you say one thing to get what you want, then go back on your word. Another kind is to fake a change of heart to get what you want, with the covert view that nothing has changed inside. You've done both of those, more than a few times now. Hence "gaming". As above, I shouldn't need to provide diffs. Anyone neutral can check those statements for themselves.

One observation so far is, a number of WR "OMG <USER_NAME> did something wrong" posts seem to be taken at face value and never carefully checked. They include a disproportionate problem of "look hard for evidence one way but not at all or lightly the other way". That approach leads to mistakes and problems, and a lack of credibility elsewhere.

Quick example:- As an admin in 2007, I got asked to look into a dispute between a near-banned repeat problem user, and an established admin who had blocked him for yet another incident of bad conduct. I looked from scratch, and found the near-banned user was in the right, and the admin very much in the wrong. That's how it should go. But if it were the other way round, and a user came onto WR accusing some admin of doing wrong, would most people here voluntarily and routinely check both sides and be as willing to find the notional "good guy" they were "supposed to support" was in fact wrong, and the person who by all accounts was in the wrong, was not? That's a major problem.

I noticed a post somewhere or other on the forum claiming "FT2 did X to meee!". A dozen voices said "how evil!"... but not one person had thought to ask me, or checked facts, or questioned the account. It was all taken at face value. Which was a bad mistake, and anyone could have asked more - I'm not exactly hard to find. (I remember the case, can't remember the thread.)

I think that's exactly how Poet/Guy/Taxwoman got away with it here. A number of people didn't want to find him wrong, in part because it would have meant wiki admins/arbitrators/community would have been right and that no "biased unjust block" had actually taken place.....

..... and at some level for some users, that simply wasn't the desired story.

This post has been edited by FT2: Sun 14th September 2008, 5:31pm

[FT2]

What the hell are you? I think if being on ArbCom means anything other than pleasing Mr. Wales surely it is necessary to have at least basic ability to parse human language on multiple levels for the purposes of discerning intent. Anyone who relies on spoken or written words to interpret evidence faces this challenge. You couldn't pass a Turing Test.

I think I discerned the intent quite well.

My question -- to Peter, not Kelly -- was 1/ to suggest he might wish to stop the facade and instead talk genuinely, and 2/ to state my own feelings, with reasons for both. Both seem reasonable messages and were reasonably understood. Perhaps some would have prefered I respond to sarcasm with sarcasm, or sarcasm by ignoring, but I didn't think it was best. Peter is not really into subtle sarcasm either.

You'll notice the post got a sensible reply from Peter, and a daft one from Kelly. The former is what matters. If it doesn't go anywhere useful then so be it; I'd still rather see direct speech than that.

This post has been edited by FT2: Sun 14th September 2008, 5:56pm

[Ottava]

Hi, FT2. You probably have no reason to listen to me or the rest. However, I wanted to mention that I have been working with Peter in a Socratic questioning pattern. I am trying to have him self analyze and further his own understanding of interacting with others. I only mention this here because I think it will help improve his understanding as a whole, and help avoid future problems.

[Peter Damian]

One kind of gaming is when you say one thing to get what you want, then go back on your word. Another kind is to fake a change of heart to get what you want, with the covert view that nothing has changed inside. You've done both of those, more than a few times now. Hence "gaming". As above, I shouldn't need to provide diffs. Anyone neutral can check those statements for themselves.

I'm sorry, you are saying I change my mind, go back on my word?

[courtesy blanked]

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 14th September 2008, 6:02pm

[anthony]

What the hell are you? I think if being on ArbCom means anything other than pleasing Mr. Wales surely it is necessary to have at least basic ability to parse human language on multiple levels for the purposes of discerning intent. Anyone who relies on spoken or written words to interpret evidence faces this challenge. You couldn't pass a Turing Test.

I think I discerned the intent quite well.

My question -- to Peter, not Kelly -- was 1/ to suggest he might wish to stop the facade and instead talk genuinely, and 2/ to state my own feelings, with reasons for both. Both seem reasonable messages and were reasonably understood. Perhaps some would have prefered I respond to sarcasm with sarcasm, or sarcasm by ignoring, but I didn't think it was best. Peter is not really into subtle sarcasm either.

You'll notice the post got a sensible reply from Peter, and a daft one from Kelly. The former is what matters. If it doesn't go anywhere useful then so be it; I'd still rather see direct speech than that.

Great work, FT2.

[Random832]

FT2, either you lie like a cheap rug, or you are completely incompetent to be an Arbitrator. Which is it?

I don't find gaming and sarcasm is needed for the role, and presumption of sarcasm causes more problems than direct speech could have fixed.

Presumption of sarcasm is inherent in AGF when the alternative is a presumption of malicious lies.

[Peter Damian]

Just to address this one. FT2 has accused my twice of 'gaming' my unblocks. In particular, of faking "a change of heart to get what you want, with the covert view that nothing has changed inside. You've done both of those, more than a few times now. Hence "gaming". As above, I shouldn't need to provide diffs. Anyone neutral can check those statements for themselves." This is easily the most implausible and stupid (yes, stupid) of the many implausible and stupid things he has said on this forum. Stupid? Yes, when the diffs are there for all to see.

Here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...er:Peter+Damian is my block log, there follow the relevant blocks, and some diffs to show there was no 'change of heart'. All of it pretty consistent I would have thought.

2 May 2008 - my first main action after an absurd 6 month block was a strongly worded email to Flo Night complaining about an abusive and untrue message that FT2 had left on my talk page. She apologised and promised someone would have a word with FT2. No change of heart, none needed.

12 July 2008 (Following 8 July block) I placed a link on my user page as proof of a second abusive message FT2 had placed on my page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=225166870

The block was made because I had dared to complain to FT2 about the blocking of a fellow editor.

14 August 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=231735316

A strongly worded complaint about FT2's harassment of other editors. A complaint that Arbcom has repeatedly ignored emails and request for arbitration. A complaint about what prompted the August block, namely raising an AfD against a piece of pseudoscientific cruft that FT2 had authored.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=231735596 complaining about FT2 harassment and veiled threats about my RL identity

31 August 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=235854487

An apology to Stifle. Just to show I do apologies - Stifle had apologised to me in order to get me to return to the project. I thought that was pretty manful of him, and he deserved an apology in return (I tend to fly off the handle easily, everyone knows that). I have no quarrel with Stifle.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 14th September 2008, 7:27pm

[FT2]

One kind of gaming is when you say one thing to get what you want, then go back on your word. Another kind is to fake a change of heart to get what you want, with the covert view that nothing has changed inside. You've done both of those, more than a few times now. Hence "gaming". As above, I shouldn't need to provide diffs. Anyone neutral can check those statements for themselves.

I'm sorry, you are saying I change my mind, go back on my word?

Well, yeah. If you want diffs added for every last one of the following then let me know. (As you know I try to avoid linking to diffs from your first account where possible. Left up to you.) It's from memory but accurate, minor details and sequence tweaks aside. Rough history follows:

This started with a spiral of allegations and behaviors in late November/early December which were resoundingly checked and rejected by the community. You made these claims on day #1 of a 14 day election, and to give an idea how tenuous they were, I suspect more people voted "support" by means of rejection than followed your view. The allegations were unpleasant, tenuous, defamatory, and roughly "OMG LOOK HE EDITZ X AND (SELECTIVE LIST OF ARTICLES) SO HE MUST BE AN X-IST" and "OMG THE CHILDREN". You showed no interest in genuine fact finding at all, nor discussion, nor listened to what almost everyone else tried to say. The allegations had 2 full weeks to be examined, in a high profile election for a high profile role, and yet they were roundly rejected by almost everyone of any credibility.


(Note that a certain multiple-banned sock gamer has been trying to get traction for these identical notions since I removed him from his favorite socking haunts around May 2006. He hasn't succeeded either, but that's why I don't much care - its an old game for him, and his way of having fun. Every now and then he looks for a new person to take it up again for him. We're used to it on-wiki... since his first ban in 2006, actually)

Anyhow, that's the background. So, back to you:

You fairly clearly couldn't handle being rejected by the community. You switched to aggressive canvassing and alleging a conspiracy, accusing others, etc. You were blocked for aggressive canvassing and smear campaigning. Unblocking was based upon your statement that it was a "momentary abberation". But instead despite your word, you almost immediately resumed. That was #1

So you were re-blocked for continuing. You claimed to have been blocked unfairly. In fact what happened was, you were told by the blocking admin what was necessary to be unblocked, in light of your previous failure, and simply didn't do so. Hence you weren't. That was arguably #2 since if you'd really meant any of what you had said, you would have.

You proceeded to claim these blocks was due to some kind of admin conspiracy, rather than resumption of activities previously blocked for, which was the reality. That was at least your second reslanting of events (the first was slanting of our conversations and description of the issue itself). Instead of facing the issue as needed, you next went to Jimmy Wales (I heard long after) who was genuinely concerned to find if they were true and asked you for substantiation of your claims. I was told long afterwards by another person that you were asked more than once for viable evidence to support a genuine concern, prevaricated, and in the end failed to produce any. (#3)

There was a long gap on-wiki (Jan-March). You next asked for unblock in March or thereabouts. You claimed not to have done anything since December, but in fact you knew full well that under a then-new name you had been doing the same activities almost non-stop, at WR. That's misleading/untruthful/insincere statement #4

You were unblocked following discussion with FloNight. I wasn't party to this but I gather there were expectations of conduct. An unblock following that kind of activity is rarely without such. If so, you clearly breached any understanding FloNight felt was given, too. (Losing count round about now...)

The rest was simple. You were a while later blocked for yet more of similar issues, and block shortened/unblocked by Thatcher as a last chance following numerous warnings by multiple users. You were told it was a likely last chance and ignored it.

Finally you were banned a week or so ago for recent activity, including yet again grossly escalating it ("Let war commence!" etc and other comments) as stated.

In passing, you also made several untruthful statements to look better. For example, you changed your story, saying on WR and later on WP that you never actually accused any criminal act, which you knew was a clearly untruthful statement. You also claimed in December to have apologized, which was untruthful - you hadn't, whether sincerely or insincerely.

So... yes. If you want it bluntly, you could not have put it better. You have consistently gone back on your word. (Or it was not truly meant in the first place.)

Here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...er:Peter+Damian is my block log, there follow the relevant blocks, and some diffs to show there was no 'change of heart'. All of it pretty consistent I would have thought.

Except you actually have blocks and relevant activity under other account/s for a longer history of identical activity. Not just one.

This post has been edited by FT2: Mon 15th September 2008, 2:33am

[Docknell]

FT2, rather than working on Damian's tone, here is your actual agenda:

You said:

“This started with a spiral of allegations and behaviors in late November/early December which were resoundingly checked and rejected by the community.”

FT2, you are on Wikipedia Review. This is not WP. Your diffs have been checked here, by those who are not under the threat of bullying or banning. The diffs show that you are promoting zoophilia as a quaint lifestyle choice, in the same way that some editors are promoting pederasty.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=113555

You have been extremely evasive in not answering simple questions about your use of sockpuppets for the promotion of bestiality and NLP.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125876

FT2, you also said:

”You made these claims on day #1 of a 14 day election, and to give an idea how tenuous they were, I suspect more people voted "support" by means of rejection than followed your view. The allegations were unpleasant, tenuous, defamatory, and roughly "OMG LOOK HE EDITZ X AND (SELECTIVE LIST OF ARTICLES) SO HE MUST BE AN X-IST" and "OMG THE CHILDREN". You showed no interest in genuine fact finding at all, nor discussion, nor listened to what almost everyone else tried to say. The allegations had 2 full weeks to be examined, in a high profile election for a high profile role, and yet they were roundly rejected by almost everyone of any credibility.”

Again, this is Wikipedia Review, not Wikipedia. Shouting adolescent babble in caps does not make you suddenly cool. You edited bestiality related articles, and you did it promotionally from the start. The diffs are very obvious to see, and they resulted in articles such as this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia

FT2, you said:

“(Note that a certain multiple-banned sock gamer has been trying to get traction for these identical notions since I removed him from his favorite socking haunts around May 2006. He hasn't succeeded either, but that's why I don't much care - its an old game for him, and his way of having fun. Every now and then he looks for a new person to take it up again for him. We're used to it on-wiki... since his first ban in 2006, actually)”

Hasn’t succeeded? FT2, you look guiltier than ever, and editors have already been removing your pseudoscientific promotional garbage (that you persist in defending):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...on/NLP_Modeling

People know why you are here. You are effigy burning. You are doing it to defend your sick fringe promotional activities. You are doing it to defend those articles against further cleanup. You are making WP look all the more like a cult.

You seem to be very upset that multiple people here have noticed your proclivity for talking crap and promoting pseudoscience and bestiality. You are obviously trying to promote the idea that only a tiny tiny minority of people hold that view. However, there is already a chorus of people on this site who have already concurred that your diffs show you are promoting bestiality as a lifestyle, and pseudoscientific cruft on WP. There are many more damning diffs to present.

Q: What tone specifically would you prefer Peter Damian to adopt?

Q: Which of your bestiality sub-articles / POV forks would you prefer us all to examine next?


Doc

[Peter Damian]

So you were re-blocked for continuing. You claimed to have been blocked unfairly. In fact what happened was, you were told by the blocking admin what was necessary to be unblocked, in light of your previous failure, and simply didn't do so. Hence you weren't. That was arguably #2 since if you'd really meant any of what you had said, you would have.

You proceeded to claim these blocks was due to some kind of admin conspiracy, rather than resumption of activities previously blocked for, which was the reality.

I am emailing Wales again tonight in an effort to stop this stream of distortions. The events of December - including the proven admin conspiracy are well-established and I have a letter from the Arbcom to prove that.

Again, check your facts before your write this rubbish.

In passing, you also made several untruthful statements to look better. For example, you changed your story, saying on WR and later on WP that you never actually accused any criminal act, which you knew was a clearly untruthful statement. You also claimed in December to have apologized, which was untruthful - you hadn't, whether sincerely or insincerely.

Untrue. How dare you say this. Speechless.

I was told long afterwards by another person that you were asked more than once for viable evidence to support a genuine concern, prevaricated, and in the end failed to produce any. (#3)

Haven't you bothered even to check the thread called 'Oversighted edits'? WJBScribe has long since admitted this was true. I can't produce evidence when it has been deleted, and only the Wikimedia foundation has access to it.

Except you actually have blocks and relevant activity under other account/s for a longer history of identical activity. Not just one.

The other account was legit (in fact you yourself placed the 'in accordance with policy') template. Again, how dare you. Who do you think you are fooling?


This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 15th September 2008, 7:31am

[FT2]

Peter, you need to understand I won't knowingly state things as fact, if I can't back them up. [Minor caveat, if I can't or it's hearsay, I'll make that clear]

So you were re-blocked for continuing. You claimed to have been blocked unfairly. In fact what happened was, you were told by the blocking admin what was necessary to be unblocked, in light of your previous failure, and simply didn't do so. Hence you weren't. That was arguably #2 since if you'd really meant any of what you had said, you would have.

You proceeded to claim these blocks was due to some kind of admin conspiracy, rather than resumption of activities previously blocked for, which was the reality.

I am emailing Wales again tonight in an effort to stop this stream of distortions. The events of December - including the proven admin conspiracy are well-established and I have a letter from the Arbcom to prove that.

Again, check your facts before your write this rubbish.

Let's spell out the backing for that statement step by step:

* "So you were re-blocked for continuing..."

First unblock: Q: "are you willing to agree to stop canvassing..." A: "Yes of course I agree. It was a momentary aberration. I apologise again" Block log "User agrees to stop the aggressive canvassing that resulted in the block".

First re-block: Admin: "Can I suggest you don't? You've already opposed so I see no further need to question the candidate, and considering that you were quite rightly blocked yesterday, I'd suggest that you no longer comment on FT2's candidacy again... this isn't bullying, just a serious concern... As I said, you've had your say, you've opposed, you're not going to change that vote, so move on" You: "I will not move on." Admin warning: "Well my friend, consider this a final warning, as you're cruising for block No.2".

You then posted a further clear statement of intent to pick it up again and take it further, by pursuing this with third parties rather than dropping it. This was your first "going back on your word", as you'd been unblocked on your claim it was a "momentary abberation" (above).

As a direct result of that breach of your unblock conditions (1/ failing to drop your activity, 2/ escalating it, 3/ approaching third parties about it), and nothing else, you were reblocked with this comment: "I'm sorry to do this after you've just announced your retirement, but I have blocked you indefinately, as you have clearly made a legal threat..."


* "You claimed to have been blocked unfairly..."

Statement of fact - you still claim it. (And evidently that view was not widely agreed.)

* "In fact what happened was, you were told by the blocking admin what was necessary to be unblocked, in light of your previous failure..."

Blocking admin - "Until this [legal threat] is retracted, you are not allowed to edit the website."

Reviewing admin:
"Your blog post was still up when I blocked you and I have no way of knowing how many sites you may have posted your vicious accusations to. [...] It seems to me that to unblock you I would need you to post here:

1. The names of each site you posted to so that it can be confirmed that your posts have been removed
2. The names of any other organizations you have contacted, details of what you told them
3. What action you have taken to withdrawn the allegations and a clear statement that they should be ignored by anyone who read them
4. A general statement to FT2 that you withdraw your allegations and apologise for hurt caused by your campaign
5. Agreement to leave FT2 alone permanently both on Wikipedia and offline.

If you agree to this:

1. I will unblock you
2. FT2 has agreed that he will let the one question [...] be deleted, and he will remove the header to your questions which you find offensive.

Alternatively, I cannot stop you from pursue the matter further but I think it appropriate you stay blocked while doing so."


* "...and simply didn't do so..."

If you did the reasonable things needed for an unblock (in light of previous going back on your word), or even a majority of them, then please confirm it. But you didn't.

* "That was arguably #2 since if you'd really meant any of what you had said, you would have..."

Self evident. If you truly mean something you don't go ahead and immediately do the exact opposite.

* "You proceeded to claim these blocks was due to some kind of admin conspiracy, rather than resumption of activities previously blocked for, which was the reality..."

See eg, your post ("The events of December including the proven admin conspiracy are well-established").

Hence my exact statement. QED

In passing, you also made several untruthful statements to look better. For example, you changed your story, saying on WR and later on WP that you never actually accused any criminal act, which you knew was a clearly untruthful statement. You also claimed in December to have apologized, which was untruthful - you hadn't, whether sincerely or insincerely.

Untrue. How dare you say this. Speechless.

You do "moral indignation" quite well. But it's not helpful and in your case, its a blatant untruth. Which exact part are you speechless about, that you'd like me to cite the precise quotes for?

I was told long afterwards by another person that you were asked more than once for viable evidence to support a genuine concern, prevaricated, and in the end failed to produce any. (#3)

Haven't you bothered even to check the thread called 'Oversighted edits'? WJBScribe has long since admitted this was true. I can't produce evidence when it has been deleted, and only the Wikimedia foundation has access to it.

No, of course I haven't. Yours (or anyone elses) sole reference to any oversighted material to me that I can remember --unless mentioned in the initial flurry when I signed up on WR-- was one obscure talk page post in July, where a different person asked about this:

Q: "FT2... While you are here can you either confirm or deny that a few of your edits presented by Hinnibilis were oversighted? Can you recollect the rationale for the actions?
Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)"

A: "I'm not sure how I could tell, this being the first mention of any such to me. If this was in the last 30 days - the duration of the oversight log - I can check for myself though. Be aware there is no ability to search the oversight logs by 'name of editor of oversighted revision' though. [...]
FT2 (Talk | email) 07:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)"

Obviously whatever might have been visible in the July log is no longer visible.

In fact as you know, Jimbo's main question that I'm referring to was not about oversighted edits. You approached him claiming to have evidence. You were directly asked by him to substantiate your main allegation about me, where you apparently claimed unequivocably to have that "evidence" of alleged activities (so I'm told). You then prevaricated, failed to do so, were asked again, and ultimately (I'm told) made it fairly clear by default that you had nothing to that effect. That is indeed "going back on your word". That was the actual point of this item.

Except you actually have blocks and relevant activity under other account/s for a longer history of identical activity. Not just one.

The other account was legit (in fact you yourself placed the 'in accordance with policy') template. Again, how dare you. Who do you think you are fooling?

Legitimacy isn't the question. Let's try again: - Are you denying that as well as "Peter Damian" you have one or more other accounts with significant block logs highly relevant to this discussion, but that you only disclosed here the one, and didn't even hint there were also extensive block log/s on other/s? Do I have to actually name it/them, or will you?



Finally I note that the various other places you "went back on your word" are conveniently ignored. Perhaps you could enlighten me on those too, rather than just ignoring them.


In brief, Peter... Yes, you go back on your word. Repeatedly.

This post has been edited by FT2: Mon 15th September 2008, 12:14pm