FT2's Failed Bid for the Arbitrary Committee, per Peter Damian's request Options

[MaliceAforethought]

That took a bit. You've no idea how many lists/secret hidey-holes these buggers have.

---------------------

From risker.wp at gmail.com Sat Dec 4 01:16:24 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 20:16:24 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Fwd: ArbCom, the past (Part 1) - From WJBScribe
Message-ID: <AANLkTimOLnNSvD8qkMWjuYr0Y5G3CYmm1UPDx4gBkw1L@mail.gmail.com>

Forwarded with the permission of, and at the request of, WJBscribe. One of
two.

Risker/Anne
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Will <wjbscribe at gmail.com>
Date: 3 December 2010 19:50
Subject: Fwd: ArbCom, the past (Part 1)
To: risker.wp at gmail.com


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 12:09 AM
Subject: Re: ArbCom, the past
To: Will <wjbscribe at gmail.com>


Quick check - what nicknames did you use on IRC? Just wjb, or did you
ever use others?


On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 4:08 PM, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have always respected your approach. I have never asked for special
treatment or anything but a fair field. I don't recall such conversations,
but from 2007 to 2010 and in a pressured situation as it was, who can tell.
If I've made a mistake in all of this, then I will not hide it. I have all
my IRC logs (I think) - I dont know if you have yours but as far as I know I
have mine. I'll look for private chats between us tonight and try to locate
any such chat as you mention. If I've made a mistake it will obviously be
deeply embarrassing, but that's okay.
>
> In November 2008, reviewing my emails for the Damian unban RFAR, I found
an email not one other person remembered or knew about, that showed I had
made a mistake. I could have hidden it in the certain knowledge not one
person would ever have known. But I disclosed it that day. I would do no
less here.
>
> If you have any details - private chat or channel, rough time-frame - then
I would appreciate them, but I will scrutinise all chats we ever had for key
words like "oversight*" and "damian" or "buckner" or "Gerard" and see if
anything comes up. If it does I'll let you know.
>
> I admit I have some apprehension over this. I take care in ethical
behavior. I disclose carefully, avoided reading cases where involved, and so
on. At the same time you are someone who does not say things lightly, nor
speak without thought, nor given to drama at all. Your reputation with me is
of the highest. I therefore take what you say as meaning there is a
significant chance I could find what you say. Against that, I thought I'd
done such a search in the 2008 RFAR case and if something had turned up I
would have disclosed it then. There's no mention which makes me think
nothing was there to be found.
>
> If you have by any chance kept logs and can send me a copy I'd appreciate
it, but regardless I will look carefully.
>
> Not much to say until I can check. I'll do that today. If you have any
more information please let me know.
>
> Hoping all is well with you,
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Will <wjbscribe at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I regret having to write this email, but your decision to run in the
>> ArbCom elections on the basis you have gives me no choice.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/ACE2...ended_statement -
>> "The "oversighted edits" matter (long)"
>>
>> I am sorry, but this section isn't true (or, at least, it is totally
>> at odds with my recollection of what occurred). You made it very clear
>> to me when you drew the Dbuckner/Peter Damian edits to my attention on
>> IRC that you had requested they be oversighted - you gave me the
>> impression that the edits could in some way be used connect your
>> username to you (though I now understand this isn't the case). To
>> suggest now that David did the oversighting without reference to you
>> astounds me. I recall that you confirmed to me that the oversighting
>> had been done on or about the date thereof. I didn't know then that
>> it was David who did the oversighting. No doubt you requested his
>> assistance in a similar way as you requested mine with the
>> Dbuckner/Peter Damian issue. You and I had numerous discussions in
>> the following months in which you clearly were aware that the edits
>> had been oversighted. I felt it implied in those discussions that you
>> continued to believe they had been oversighted on a proper basis.
>> Apparently, even David does not maintain that this was the case.
>>
>> I was surprised when I read your RFC (sometime after it had been
>> closed) to find your account of your involvement in the oversighting
>> of those edits to conflict so wildly with my recollection. I think
>> you misled me at the time and are misleading the community now. I
>> chose not to call you out in public over these matters as you had by
>> then resigned from ArbCom and relinquished oversight/checkuser rights.
>> However, I cannot allow you to run for election again without making
>> it clear that I believe your account of these events to be misleading
>> and, I am sorry to say, deliberately so.
>>
>> In spite of the above, I bear you no ill will and would rather avoid
>> further public airing of dirty laundry. I think if you reflect on
>> your position, you have to acknowledge that it is untenable. I'll let
>> you have a couple of days to consider things, but I'm afraid I cannot
>> let you run for ArbCom (or otherwise seek to have restored the rights
>> you relinquished) without making public my recollection of these
>> events.
>>
>> Sorry
>> Will
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private.../attachment.htm

From risker.wp at gmail.com Sat Dec 4 01:18:13 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 20:18:13 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Fwd: ArbCom, the past - From WJBScribe
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=NzLYFYTjmE8AKHhaLyh3h_+pr4tqw33KBd84e@mail.gmail.com>

Part 2 of 2, forwarded with the permission of and at the request of
WJBScribe.

Risker/Anne

Forwarded conversation
Subject: Fwd: ArbCom, the past
------------------------

From: *Will* <wjbscribe at gmail.com>
Date: 3 December 2010 19:50
To: risker.wp at gmail.com


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Will <wjbscribe at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: ArbCom, the past
To: FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com>


Thank you. I am glad you have come to this conclusion and owned up to
it, which cannot have been easy. It goes some way towards restoring
some of the confidence I once had.

For my part, your withdrawal from the election is sufficient. I do not
intend to raise anything publicly provided you do so. As to a
statement, that is up to you. Sometimes it is better just to walk
away. On the other hand, if you're looking to rebuild trust you will
need to be honest about past mistakes. Up to you. I have no objection
to being mentioned in any statement you do make, if that's something
you want to do.

I wish you the best for the future.
Will

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 12:35 AM, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> nm - found the log.
>
> I see what you mean. I found the relevant logs. There's a one word
expletive
> for that. But you're right in that I screwed up. What is believed about
> honest/dishonest doesn't bother me so much as that I don't like making
> mistakes of that kind.
>
> I accept that you may have reached a conclusion it was deliberate. I was
> dealing with OrangeMarlin, low connectivity, and a very close relative's
> death within the few days prior. I had put Damian and his affairs out of
> mind. I made a statement without checking and probably (though I cannot
> remember well this far on), on very little sleep.
>
> Nonetheless I do ethics a lot stricter than you might think. This is my
> conclusion. I hope you will see it as appropriate.
>
> First, there is no way I can stand for Arbcom. Something on this scale is
> enough however it happened. I need to step down from ACE. Second, I owe
you
> thanks. It shames me to see it, but it's right that it's faced. Third,
> public disclosure would be needed before any such a role in future. Even
if
> trust can be rebuilt, that's probably not for a long time. Fourth, I
> haven't yet thought through what level of disclosure is needed right now.
> It's gone midnight there so can I get back to you on this one shortly
given
> the preceding?
>
> Comments welcomed. Brevity as there's a meeting here and I want to get
this
> to you before joining it. Will write more or respond to any reply
tomorrow.
>
> Paul.
>

----------
From: *Will* <wjbscribe at gmail.com>
Date: 3 December 2010 19:57
To: FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com>


Paul - I think you need to act on this. At the moment you're still a
candidate in the election, and I'm uncomfortable with the basis upon
which you're doing so. If you're going to withdraw I think you need
to do it by the end of the day (4th Dec) UTC time, otherwise I don't
think you're leaving me any choice but to raise my concerns on-wiki.

You can leave making a statement until later, when you're comfortable
with what you're going to say.

Will
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private...chment-0001.htm

[trenton]

Interesting....

You gotta doubt a guy who goes on and on (and on and on and on) about how ethical he is.

Even in his withdrawal he manages to deceive people into believing it was his choice, rather than being found out on his lies and given an ultimatum.

[thekohser]

You gotta doubt a guy who goes on and on (and on and on and on) about how ethical he is.

Woof, woof!

[Peter Damian]

Interesting....

You gotta doubt a guy who goes on and on (and on and on and on) about how ethical he is.

Even in his withdrawal he manages to deceive people into believing it was his choice, rather than being found out on his lies and given an ultimatum.

FT2 is now irrelevant. Boddy's statement is what I wanted. It proves the lying and deception extended far beyond FT2's pathetic involvement in this.

[MaliceAforethought]

Rather anticlimatic personally, FT2 does everything in private except shag animals, but here we are:

From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Fri Apr 25 23:15:09 2008
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:15:09 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Peter Damien aka Dbuckner
In-Reply-To: <16032ea0804250919n3069b504nce2400c66a54a98f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <48111d14.04eb300a.328e.097f@mx.google.com> <16032ea0804241712n3ee276cayd178991b1e0df657@mail.gmail.com> <35C87DFA-5D77-47A7-97BA-D5604158E906@gmail.com>
<16032ea0804250919n3069b504nce2400c66a54a98f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <481265c7.2435440a.29eb.0c79@mx.google.com>

These are the concerns I'm aware of in deciding "public or private". There's
a few of them, some are important:

1. Banned users are normally heard off-wiki, especially if their ban
resulted from defamation issues and might result in drama or a "platform".
2. Opposing view 1 - there is nothing inherently private here and the
defamation claim has been judged by the community and others and found
meaningless; I'm not averse to it.
3. Opposing view 2 - A number of users are aware of his claims and would
probably be more reassured to see them rebutted publicly than in covert
discussion.

4. There are concerns that having been unable to stay off the topic twice
now, he will be unable to in future.
5. Opposing view - if his case is demolished then the allegations die down?
But they may not, or the rebuttal may be /really/ bad for him IRL.

6. Any hearing will inevitably discuss diffs in which he signed with his
real name. I assume from the RTV and new name he wants to avoid that. It's
going to be difficult to both avoid that problem and also have a public
hearing.
7. Opposing view - he's linked to his old account anyway so it's not really
private. But he may not realize that.

8. A sitting arb was the subject of the action, if the ban stands then it
will be said there was bias, whereas if it's public it will be obvious what
was said and done, the evidence, and conditions etc.
9. He is, apart from this one issue, a productive editor well worth getting
back if he can be reliably stable and genuinely agree its closed.

We /need/ to be open. But we cannot do so without the evidence about his
block being public too. I don't think this is for us to resolve; whatever we
might decide is [[WP:WRONG]].


I think therefore someone should write to him in the following terms:

"Peter,

We are discussing a private or public hearing here. It is usual for a banned
user to be heard by email, however you have apparently requested it to be
held in public. FT2 endorses this on the grounds of ArbCom transparency and
openness. However if it is held in public then evidence related to your
block and behaviour would also be summarized in public, and in some cases
these were signed with what looks like your name. They can be blanked
afterwards but that may still be a problem.

For the record, FT2 has asked that regardless of the decision, all
discussion of the case when it is presented takes place off the Committee's
mailing list.

Please consider this decision very carefully, and let us know after
considering this, your preference for a public or private hearing. Also bear
in mind that the issue under discussion will be your conduct, and your
block/ban.


Yours, ..."

[Peter Damian]

Rather anticlimatic personally, FT2 does everything in private except shag animals, but here we are:

It was Vandenberg who called it a 'brain dump', clearly this is not the famous 50k missive. Oh well. There was a reply to that email, where "Another arb promptly told him to keep his opinions to himself."

[MaliceAforethought]

It was Vandenberg who called it a 'brain dump', clearly this is not the famous 50k missive. Oh well. There was a reply to that email, where "Another arb promptly told him to keep his opinions to himself."

Could it have been another list or to select folk? Let's see what else we've got around there. I hadn't considered a size parameter, but might be worth it.

***********************************************************

From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Tue Apr 22 10:18:00 2008
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:18:00 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia
In-Reply-To: <F43A818E433D44648BB0569FDCB686CB@edwardPC>
References: <F43A818E433D44648BB0569FDCB686CB@edwardPC>
Message-ID: <480dbb5d.1f15300a.0410.01b4@mx.google.com>

Re Dbuckner:


As someone rather involved, it's best I don't answer him (of course). But I
can provide background on the way he got blocked, for those who might wish
to. I've kept opinion out of it and stuck to evidenced facts.


This was of course, the user who was "trolling" me at the arb election. He
started with hostility at a mediation I undertook for him a year ago, then
went beyond asking questions about "why are you editing controversial area
X" and posted edits with summaries that stated "you are X". He aggressively
canvassed others ("do you know about this person you voted to support!"),
and when users attempted to stop him (Radiant! In this case) decided they
were X too. So he got blocked. I pretty much ignored him, except to answer
his talk page and comments etc.

He posted that he was sorry, and it was a "momentary lapse", and was
unblocked, but went back on the attack again almost immediately after, on a
variety of themes. He made various untruthful claims - that he had
apologized (he didn't), that Giano was an old friend of his or some such (I
checked this with Giano who opined that he had never heard of the guy pretty
much) and so on. He was reblocked a few days later for making threats of a
quasi-legal nature and confirming he had acted on them. As a postscript he
posted a complaint to the blocking admin (WJBScribe) that "I hadn't realized
it would be taken so seriously", or some such. Despite this he apparently (I
am routinely told) then promptly continued in his identical actions of a
smear campaign. As it was off-wiki, it's not much of a concern of mine if he
has though.

As can be seen from various deleted edits, his initial concern was roughly,
"OMG HOW CAN YOU CONSIDER SOMEONE WHO EDITS THESE ARTICLES!", despite most
of the community checking and basically telling him "the editing's fine and
person editing area X doesn't mean a thing". He couldn't handle that and
rapidly spiralled, "I HAVE CHILDREN WHO USE WIKIPEDIA!" and "YOU CAN'T DO
THIS!" type stuff, and so on.

The actual trigger for this was that I listed for the election, all articles
I had significantly worked on; he stated that the media would have a field
day and was appalled they hadn't been censored - that one would hide some of
them or not wish to show them publicly. I think I pointed out that if I
/had/ by chance hidden them, his response would have been rather equally
predictable.....

His spiralling included a wide range of disprovable assumptions, mostly made
up and rather strongly demonstrably untrue. Little point going into them; if
anyone does need more thorough evidence, it was sent to Jimmy on December
11.

I haven't tracked him since. He hasn't been active on-wiki, but I'm told he
has been extremely active on WR, pushing his same allegations and claims
there, pretty much non-stop since December. I've had a post emailed in my
direction suggesting he's decided the reason he is blocked is there is a
cult of some kind, and that in fact Erik Moeller is part of a Wikipedia cult
of zoophilia and a type of therapy that HeadleyDown tried to vandalize,
called NLP (AKA "neuro-linguistic programming"; not coincidentally both are
subjects I worked on in 2004-06). I'm also told he requested unblocking to
WJB a few weeks back, on the apparent basis he has done nothing since
December. The person who told me this stated that he guy has been active
non-stop and getting more and more out of touch with reality on it, on WR.
He's also (I am told) moved to attack WJBScribe there, and others. I haven't
checked these things myself but they're said by people with no prior
connection, so I have no reason to doubt them. They ought to be checked
though.

Obviously someone needs to check WR to see if that's accurate, or to ask him
himself if it's true.


My last link on DBuckner is the arb elections, mid-December:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...Elections_Decem
ber_2007/Candidate_statements/FT2/Questions_for_the_candidate#.2840.29_Quest
ions_from_Dbuckner

and also probably his own talk page and that of WJBScribe.

(The few links there won't work as the page they referred to was deleted,
you'll have to look them up manually)


Paul.



************************************************************************


From paulaugust.wp at gmail.com Fri Apr 25 14:44:44 2008
From: paulaugust.wp at gmail.com (Paul August)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:44:44 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Peter Damien aka Dbuckner
In-Reply-To: <16032ea0804241712n3ee276cayd178991b1e0df657@mail.gmail.com>
References: <48111d14.04eb300a.328e.097f@mx.google.com>
<16032ea0804241712n3ee276cayd178991b1e0df657@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <35C87DFA-5D77-47A7-97BA-D5604158E906@gmail.com>


On Apr 24, 2008, at 8:12 PM, FloNight wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 7:52 PM, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>> If I've got it right, then the above is a new username of a user
>> blocked in
>> December 2007, in connection with various issues. He looks like
>> he's asking
>> (or preparing to ask) for an unblock.
>>
>>
>> Two comments:
>>
>> 1/ I had a long LONG discussion today in which I expressed
>> strongly that I
>> felt hearing him openly and on-wiki as he asks would be a good
>> thing, even
>> though in many cases we require such users to email the list.
>>
>> 2/ If the case is heard, I would ask that from the time a venue
>> is decided
>> and a statement presented, any actual discussion of his ban
>> itself is held
>> off-list. Again, "best practice".
>>
>>
>> The aim in both cases is identical. To quote myself: ArbCom
>> members should
>> be utterly above all such and if a doubt arises its important
>> anyone who
>> wants to hear can see the evidence. There is nothing privacy
>> related here.
>> All he's been venting about is to get unblocked. Whether he will
>> act again
>> as he has before, or not, is a risk I'm willing to take for the
>> sake of
>> openness of the Committee. Plus it's his only actual problem.
>>
>>
>> I'm aware that nobody with any sense thinks anything's up, but I
>> feel
>> strongly that it is important that there be zero doubt, when we
>> have cases
>> that even tangentially, an arbitrator may be non-neutral on, then
>> we take
>> whatever steps we can to be open about it. Compare the drama over
>> poetlister
>> where we simply made a summary statement, vs. archtransit where
>> we explained
>> broadly the kind of evidence we had and let it be public. This is
>> a similar
>> case, where openness will show there is clear and simple evidence
>> and
>> whatever the decision is will be obvious. Handling it off-wiki
>> has drama
>> potential.
>>
>> He's not a sock, not a habitually disruptive editor, he's written
>> good
>> content over the years and wants back. Would it be possible to
>> arrange
>> whatever is decided, to be done in a way that is as transparent
>> as possible?
>>
>>
>> That said no appeal has yet formally been submitted by any route,
>> that's
>> just my view up front.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> Having read his comments on WR, I'm EXTREMELY opposed to have an on
> site discussion about the block/unblock.
>
> Peter's accusation are too strange and unseemly to discuss on site.
>
> We can talk about it by email and let him know the answer or we can
> decline the request.
>
> This affects more than FT2. The Foundation, ArbCom, and Jimmy, among
> others, are being scrutinized as part of the cover up. More discussion
> will not satisfy. It will merely give the gossip rags more to use.
>
> Sydney

I have received an email from Peter Damian saying that he wanted
ArbCom to consider an appeal. I replied that the Committee is
discussing it.

I am not yet familiar with all the circumstances surrounding this
issue, but I do recall Dbuckner (aka Peter Damian) as being a long
time productive editor. If there is any chance that we can retain him
as a productive editor, we should.

I expect Charles Matthews would recognize the name Dbuckner as well.
Charles?

So I would be in favor of accepting his appeal -- and if there are no
objections -- I will ask him to present his case to the Committee
privately via email.

Paul August

********************************************************************

From sydney.poore at gmail.com Fri Apr 25 23:22:58 2008
From: sydney.poore at gmail.com (FloNight)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:22:58 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Peter Damien aka Dbuckner
In-Reply-To: <481265c7.2435440a.29eb.0c79@mx.google.com>
References: <48111d14.04eb300a.328e.097f@mx.google.com>
<16032ea0804241712n3ee276cayd178991b1e0df657@mail.gmail.com>
<35C87DFA-5D77-47A7-97BA-D5604158E906@gmail.com>
<16032ea0804250919n3069b504nce2400c66a54a98f@mail.gmail.com>
<481265c7.2435440a.29eb.0c79@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <16032ea0804251622k2d3d2a9aj963d435c0b2d0310@mail.gmail.com>

FT2, you are a part of the situation. I think you need to step away
from it and let the Committee handle it.

Likely we are going to discuss it on the sitting arb com mailing list.
Maybe you can avoid reading the email to the list for that time except
the one's cc'ed to both you and Peter. Does that sound reasonable?

Sydney

***********************************************************************

From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Sat Apr 26 00:24:07 2008
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 01:24:07 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Peter Damien aka Dbuckner
In-Reply-To: <16032ea0804251622k2d3d2a9aj963d435c0b2d0310@mail.gmail.com>
References: <48111d14.04eb300a.328e.097f@mx.google.com>
<16032ea0804241712n3ee276cayd178991b1e0df657@mail.gmail.com>
<35C87DFA-5D77-47A7-97BA-D5604158E906@gmail.com>
<16032ea0804250919n3069b504nce2400c66a54a98f@mail.gmail.com>
<481265c7.2435440a.29eb.0c79@mx.google.com>
<16032ea0804251622k2d3d2a9aj963d435c0b2d0310@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <481275ed.2215300a.3f0b.ffff9e6f@mx.google.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: FloNight [mailto:sydney.poore at gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 12:23 AM
To: FT2.wiki at gmail.com; Arbitration Committee mailing list
Subject: Re: [Arbcom-l] Peter Damien aka Dbuckner

FT2, you are a part of the situation. I think you need to step away
from it and let the Committee handle it.

Likely we are going to discuss it on the sitting arb com mailing list.
Maybe you can avoid reading the email to the list for that time except
the one's cc'ed to both you and Peter. Does that sound reasonable?

Sydney


I can easily do so. That said, I don't want to receive them, that way no
doubt can exist. In this case, there are delicate issues many of the
committee may not know (his old diffs contain his real name which is a
privacy issue if held in public), and conflicting issues some may be unaware
of (its unusually important for drama reduction to have transparency in this
case).

Please treat any emails from me on the topic of this appeal as those of a
party rather than an arbitrator. It means a lot to me to take all necessary
steps to ensure I live up to the standards of neutrality sought, in a case
where a sitting arb was the subject of the behavior.

As an involved party, I'm therefore presenting my wishes on the case, and
those are, that my own neutrality and non-influence, and the visible open
fairness of any decision to the user and the community, matter very much to
me and are given a priority. That's all


Thanks

********************************************************************

From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Mon May 5 21:34:30 2008
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 22:34:30 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Peter Damian
Message-ID: <481f7d62.0856100a.0c93.ffffc6d6@mx.google.com>

Will someone please let me know what's going on? As an involved editor, I'd
like to be kept in the loop of what's up, and I don't feel I am.

To date I've taken exceptional steps to ensure neutrality and ensure his
privacy, when the appeal gets heard and evidence is requested. However to
date I have heard zero back.


Thanks.

**********************************************************************

From sydney.poore at gmail.com Mon May 5 21:39:18 2008
From: sydney.poore at gmail.com (FloNight)
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 17:39:18 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Peter Damian
In-Reply-To: <481f7d62.0856100a.0c93.ffffc6d6@mx.google.com>
References: <481f7d62.0856100a.0c93.ffffc6d6@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <16032ea0805051439s59349542w4d5a960cf7baa0c0@mail.gmail.com>

FT2, which means that we are treating you like every other user. :-)

WJScribe and Peter Damian are getting their evidence together. When we
get it I will let you know,

Sydney

**********************************************************************

From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Mon May 5 22:34:09 2008
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 23:34:09 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Peter Damian
In-Reply-To: <16032ea0805051439s59349542w4d5a960cf7baa0c0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <481f7d62.0856100a.0c93.ffffc6d6@mx.google.com>
<16032ea0805051439s59349542w4d5a960cf7baa0c0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <481f8b59.2015300a.162e.5429@mx.google.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: FloNight [mailto:sydney.poore at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 10:39 PM
To: FT2.wiki at gmail.com; Arbitration Committee mailing list
Subject: Re: [Arbcom-l] Peter Damian

FT2, which means that we are treating you like every other user. :-)

WJScribe and Peter Damian are getting their evidence together. When we
get it I will let you know,

Sydney


Being treated like every other, is a Good Thing. No complaints at all about
it, it's exactly how it should be. Sadly it's also a good education on how
we handle other users :-/

I've taken on several RFAR cases but never been a defendant, or had personal
(as opposed to administrative-style) interest in one. As my first time ever
involved in that way, it comes across as a disturbing lack of communication.


I'm batting my head a bit "how we can do better on the many issues we have",
but no real luck yet.


Paul.

******************************************************************

From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Tue May 6 19:38:00 2008
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 20:38:00 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail
In-Reply-To: <16032ea0805061215v9ab1a81o5344bd0becd32ed9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1JtSZl-0007Cv-UZ@mchenry.wikimedia.org>
<16032ea0805061215v9ab1a81o5344bd0becd32ed9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4820b39c.1836440a.7b57.6e76@mx.google.com>

With respect Flo, and please forgive me, but I have real concerns about your
recent handling of some issues, and would like to ask you to change slightly
how you handle them. Today's was "one more example".


Peter Damian -- zero communication, user was unblocked although his appeal
was going to be heard by email (since when do we unblock banned users /then/
hear an appeal?). I had warned that this would be a deceptively messy case,
and a couple of points needed considering. Ignored. Result - instead of a
simple standard appeal, a horrible festering mess and more bad faith that
now will be almost impossible to nicely untangle.

Poetlister -- rough agreement to unblock on the list, but wide concerns
about conditions and presentation to the community ignored. User unblocked
pre-emptorily without thinking of how it will be explained or how to handle
it. Result - instead of the sensible way to do it, which would be agree what
we'll say to the community first, the unblock was done on Friday, leading to
a need for a statement to be drafted and researched fully. I pulled 2
overnighters to do that, got berated by my partner for horrific lateness
socially sat + sun to get it done, and we have now a horrible mess on ANI
with Random832 throwing allegations left right and center.

JoshuaZ (today) - there has been "some discussion" of a topic ban on Brandt,
but very little. The main discussion recently was your email asking for
views. We have not had discussion to the extent your on-wiki note suggests.
The chilling effect of it will surely be used as ammunition by people
against him in this debate.


These aren't huge things - most people here get stuff mostly okay, but
they're a pattern and I'd ask for it to not go this way in future quite so
much.

Apologies, and these aren't huge, but they each have caused problems. Can
you be aware?

Thanks


Paul.

********************************************************************

From sydney.poore at gmail.com Tue May 6 21:16:00 2008
From: sydney.poore at gmail.com (FloNight)
Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 17:16:00 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail
In-Reply-To: <4820b39c.1836440a.7b57.6e76@mx.google.com>
References: <E1JtSZl-0007Cv-UZ@mchenry.wikimedia.org>
<16032ea0805061215v9ab1a81o5344bd0becd32ed9@mail.gmail.com>
<4820b39c.1836440a.7b57.6e76@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <16032ea0805061416n605cdb27xc0cc2a12a75796cc@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 3:38 PM, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> With respect Flo, and please forgive me, but I have real concerns about your
> recent handling of some issues, and would like to ask you to change slightly
> how you handle them. Today's was "one more example".

Different people handle issues differently. You may not agree with my
approach but I have received positive feedback from others.

> Peter Damian -- zero communication, user was unblocked although his appeal
> was going to be heard by email (since when do we unblock banned users /then/
> hear an appeal?). I had warned that this would be a deceptively messy case,
> and a couple of points needed considering. Ignored. Result - instead of a
> simple standard appeal, a horrible festering mess and more bad faith that
> now will be almost impossible to nicely untangle.

Thatcher did the unblock after running it past the Committee. You were
not privy to all discussions about this issue.

So far Peter Damian is making many positive contributions. And he is
cooperating with the appeal process. I think it is going ok.

*******************************************************************

From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Wed Jun 25 23:28:04 2008
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:28:04 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Peter Damian
Message-ID: <4862d48b.0622300a.3f2c.21c7@mx.google.com>

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...evision=2217464
25&diff=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...evision=2217482
18&diff=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...evision=2217491
77&diff=1

Emailed to me by Alison who spotted them, oversighted, and warned him. She
has a concern he may be "flipping" again, given his repeated and escalating
attempt to reinstate them. (Note - multiple comments in some diffs).

Damian escalated the wording on the third one, which added back the removed
wordings and also added "THE POINT IS TO JUDGE PEOPLE ON HOW OLD THEY ARE,
YOU PERVERT. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter
Damian|talk]]) 22:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)"


******************************************************************

From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Thu Jul 17 16:52:05 2008
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:52:05 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Peter Damian
Message-ID: <e71d9fab0807170952q28638dfcnbd7969a64d5df3f6@mail.gmail.com>

Block, unblock, block, unblock... LaraLove is now reversing her unblock,
claiming she was "misled". Her choice, I dont have a view on that, other
than as I would for any other editor - personal attacks are not okay, nor is
OR, POV, and proxying for banned vandals, which Damian is now engaging in.



Quick update on what is relevant,with a request that someone else looks into
this and determines what needs doing.

1. Damian has posted private emails (FloNight, WJB) on his new talk page.
Those were initially deleted (per "Durova") as private emails. The revisions
containing those two chunks of text may need re-deleting if it is
inappropriate to post them.

2. Peter Damian has moved from "philosophy" where he was a constructive
editor, to proxy-edit for HeadleyDown on "NLP", and on pedophilia/pederastry
(where I just blocked Headley from), and probably related topics. In these
areas he is a highly POV editor who has bought intoHeadley's vandalism/POV
approach very readily and knowingly. Examples are that he knew his editing
partner on Pederastty was HeadleyDown, and a read of the following link will
show why these areas concern me. Should I go to ANI and seek a topic ban?



Links + refs:

Emails posted at --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hin...ersighted_Edits

Background on Damian and HeadleyDown --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hinnibilis#Comment

Evidence of his editing approach being a serious problem --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hin...2C_reply_to_FT2

(None of these are long)



Actually his entire talk page is worth a read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hinnibilis



Paul.

************************************************************************

From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Mon Aug 11 15:46:54 2008
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:46:54 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Peter Damian, before ANI
Message-ID: <e71d9fab0808110846q4a57236as129a59464e7f6e5e@mail.gmail.com>

Before I go to ANI, I would like to ask if anyone on the committee feels
this should be handled by arbitrators.



As most know, since December, Peter Damian has engaged in a campaign of
smearing and defamation, and backed this by outright lies. (An accurate
statement that I will back in the plural, if necessary.)



He has also gone badly "sideways" - from editing on philosophy, he is now
substantively proxy editing for banned user HeadleyDown, on articles that
we've kept clear of Headley for a long time now. His posts off-wiki
interpret every attempt to rein this in as a conspiracy by NLP worshiping
sexual abusers (No, I'm not joking), and his posts on-wiki show a complete
disregard for accuracy, NPOV, OR, borderlining attacks, and the same agenda
as the banned user.



I've bourne this and not responded in kind, but it'sout of hand. His latest
block was due to moving to co-edit on pederastry with headleyDown and
"WTF????!!!" when the latter was blocked, followed by a tactit admission he
knew he was a banned editor. Today's stunt is AFDing an entire section of
the wiki on spurious grounds, which he has been told is junk by HeadleyDown
(and believes this). Headley for those who remember [[RFAR/Neuro-linguistic
programming]], is a virulent to extreme pov sock user, and in the purest
sense of one who feeds on the drama and damage, a troll. (A word I don't
often use).



I would like to request a topic ban on the following areas: psychology
(broadly interpreted), sex and sexuality, areas HeadleyDown has been
identified as editing in, and actions impinging upon myself or my editing.
I'm fine to go to ANI if needed, but as he's been unblocked by the
committee, it seems right to ask here first for where it is preferred i
raise this. For those needing evidence, please see the following pages:



1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FT2#WTF???????

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hin..._attacks_on_FT2

- and -

3.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hin...here_was_a_deal

(from there through to the end of that talk page)

Especially, the two sections of that page (both fairly short):

4. [[#Comment]] where I analyze his claims and the background

5. [[#Neurolinguistic programming, reply to FT2]] where he presents his idea
on the matter.



Background on HeadleyDown can be found on the deleted page

1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=20080703003806

- and -

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

Peter Damian's latest action today, can be found at:

1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...tic_programming

an article he had never touched until encountering HeadleyDown, and which
Headley is determined to edit war on.

and his note to meon my talk pagecalling me the "guardian and defender" of
an article I basically haven't touched since freeing it from Headley in
2006.



Committee action, or ANI? Thanks.

Paul.

[Peter Damian]

Those are the ones. Not interesting in themselves, but rather in that they contradict FT2's claim that he hardly paid any attention to me. Turns out he was needling the committee at every available opportunity.

[Peter Damian]

Below is a timeline of FT2's forced resignation, which summarises the temporally confusing emails above in correct date order. This has to be read in conjunction with the other leak here http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34158 which takes us up to November 30.

On one hypothesis, Scribe was so concerned by FT2's lying on his election statement that he independently contacted FT2, to pursue a great and noble cause. On another hypothesis, the consternation and panic among the collected committee members about some other far worse thing they suspected of FT2, and which potentially implicated Jimbo, motivated the beautiful Risker to contact Scribe, and implore him to stick the knife in.

The second hypothesis is consistent with Risker having prepared the statement about the other, Greater Matter, and with Scribe emailing Risker back on Dec 3. Choose for yourself.


November 30 2010 - FT2 stands for the arbitration committee again. For some reason, Scribe mails FT2 threatening to make the events public unless he retires from the election. “You made it very clear to me … that you had requested they be oversighted”.
Dec 1 - FT2 replies, saying he has found the log of his conversation.
Dec 2- FT2 not having resigned, Scribe writes again, repeating the threat - "your withdrawal from the election is sufficient. I do not intend to raise anything publicly provided you do so."
Dec 3 - FT2 still hasn't resigned. Scribe emails Risker, who passes on the thread to the arbitration commitee.
Dec 3 - Scribe emails FT2, repeating the threat yet again - "If you're going to withdraw I think you need to do it by the end of the day (4th Dec) UTC time, otherwise I don't think you're leaving me any choice but to raise my concerns on-wiki. "
Dec 5 - FT2 resigns. (Collective sigh of relief from the committee, who little realise all this will be made public in six months).

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Tue 28th June 2011, 9:27pm