Allegations against FT2, Should P.D. take them to the Arbcom? Options

[Janron]

Yes, I have the emails to prove it, but I do not know who I can trust to send them to. I don't know if Wikipedia administrators have "spies" here acting as agents to get more information to use against others who question them.

Ooo, I am so angry I could spit. lol.

[Peter Damian]

...signed with "FT2" while asking me to provide my phone number, employer information and other personal information in order to change the false charges made against a deceased friend and co-worker.

Seriously? That's outrageous.

Is that a common practice on the part of arbcom members? I don't believe we've heard many stories of that nature, but then again, what you have there sounds like a rather unusual situation (though you'd think they'd have seen just about everything at this point).

FT2 in particular is given to this. It was so in my case, but didn't realise until Giano mentioned this, that this is common practice.

I might add the charge against me of 'off wiki harrassment' mainly relates to something I said in an email reply to FT2. But why not? He initiated it by unsolicited communication, on an account that is used by my children. I objected to the revolting links he was including and said he was 'sick'. He reacted very badly to this and the rest is history.

Yes, I have the emails to prove it, but I do not know who I can trust to send them to. I don't know if Wikipedia administrators have "spies" here acting as agents to get more information to use against others who question them.

Ooo, I am so angry I could spit. lol.

Yes there are spies here (e.g. Postlethwaite who will not hesitate to personally attack you here, if he wants).

But there are many people who can be trusted with a PM. E.g. Somey, for one.

[Moulton]

You can acquire some lightly used +1 Blowfish Armor on eBay.

[wikiwhistle]

I might add the charge against me of 'off wiki harrassment' mainly relates to something I said in an email reply to FT2.

I thought it was more that you had the audacity to have a blog expressing your opinions, that annoyed them

[Peter Damian]

I might add the charge against me of 'off wiki harrassment' mainly relates to something I said in an email reply to FT2.

I thought it was more that you had the audacity to have a blog expressing your opinions, that annoyed them

The blog was about the Zoophilia article, not FT2. There was one link to a diff that he happened to be the author of, which he immediately oversighted, and then I deleted the blog 18 hours later, in return for a promised unblocked. Then they indef blocked me. Fact.

[Amarkov]

I dunno. Maybe if you combine anti-bestiality, anti-WR, anti-punishing-of-arbitrators, and anti-process, it all works out somehow.

Or not. I can't for the life of me understand people who think that due process should be ignored to get the "right" result.

[Moulton]

I've spent the past six months trying and failing to understand the prevailing mentality of the Wikipedia power structure.

To paraphrase Forest Gump, power is as power does.

[Peter Damian]

Oh yes and I have opened a 'Peter Damian' account at WP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_Damian

and left a message on Flo's page. Had another mail from Angela saying Wales was too busy and why not try the arbcom. So here goes.

I am trying to find the policy that says you are allowed to have an unblocked page so long as for the purpose of preparing defence. Does anyone remember this?

[Moulton]

I am trying to find the policy that says you are allowed to have an unblocked page so long as for the purpose of preparing defence. Does anyone remember this?

Yes. See the remarks of AGK on my page here. He outlined that very policy to me, under similar circumstances.

[Peter Damian]

I am trying to find the policy that says you are allowed to have an unblocked page so long as for the purpose of preparing defence. Does anyone remember this?

Yes. See the remarks of AGK on my page here. He outlined that very policy to me, under similar circumstances.

Thanks for that.