------------------------
From: Peter Damian <peter.damian_AT_btinternet.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 02:33
To: arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
The following claims cannot both be true
(According to FT2) Will Boddy advised him of the oversighted [i.e. deleted]
edits on 7 Dec 2007
(According to Boddy) Boddy did not know of the deleted edits at that time,
nor for some considerable time after.
Some members of the committee, as well as Jimmy, have suggested these claims
are mutually consistent, but this is impossible. Clearly someone cannot
advise about X and not know about X.
Why does this matter?
1. I was blocked by Will Boddy at that time, one of the conditions of
unblock being to provide links to the deleted edits, as well as others. If
Boddy knew that the edits had been deleted, he was imposing a condition that
he knew could not be satisfied. That is unacceptable, even by the standards
of Wikipedia.
2. During my lengthy block, and for some time afterwards, there was a
complete silence about the issue of the deletions. I was represented as a
liar and a deceiver by FT2 and his supporters. Even Boddy called me a
'fantasist' in his statement to Arbcom (May 2008). This matters to me, at
least.
3. Boddy maintained for a long time afterwards that he did not know about
the deletions. This includes a statement he made to the Arbcom in May 2008.
He still maintains this - in correspondence with me recently he admits the
two claims above are contradictory, and even concedes he may have known
about the deletions, but now says he cannot remember the exact sequence of
events. This suggests there was a conspiracy - which includes Jimmy - to
deceive Arbcom.
4. Boddy has declined to provide me with an email that he sent to FT2 on or
shortly before 5 December 2010 last year. The email was the immediate cause
of FT2 withdrawing from the elections. It may provide some insight into
which of the claims above is true (given that Boddy's stated reason for
emailing FT2 was that FT2's 2010 election statement 'did not match his
memory', and the only apparent mismatch was the knowledge of the
oversights). Boddy will not discuss its contents. This suggests he is
concealing something, and that his claim to have 'forgotten the details'
does not match reality.
5. He claims to have sent a copy of this email to the Arbcom. If so, this
suggests Arbcom is concealing something.
Jimmy has suggested these events do not matter any more. If so, can someone
please tell the truth about them? I will stop telling the truth about the
Wikipedia administration if they stop telling lies about me.
Edward
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 07:53
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
It might matter to him, but determining what Will knew and when is very far from our mandate. Even if Peter Damian had a ban appeal, this stuff is so remote from the reasons for his years-later community-imposed ban that it's not worth looking into.
FWIW: Will probably was reflexively protective of FT2 in 2007; it seems that FT2 has caused him to gag enough that he's lost this reflex. Peter Damian cannot recognize this and prefers to see it as a cover up.
The gist of this message is that he wants to know what Will said to make FT2 drop out. Will has never given his consent to give that out to others (and Peter Damian even reports that he's declined to give it). We cannot give him what he wants. We can tell him so and mark it closed.
Frank
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Xeno <xenowiki_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 08:39
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
Sounds like a decent course of action, I'm certainly still at a loss as to what outcome PD is expecting here.
-x
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: David Fuchs <dfuchs.wiki_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:05
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
Just respond with something along the lines of "Discovering 'who knew what' is outside our mandate, and irrelevant to the community ban you are currently under; therefor even in the course of a ban appeal we would not investigate these matters."
Did we every actually receive an email from Boddy?
--
David Fuchs
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Xeno <xenowiki_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:15
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
No, as far as I can tell, we have not heard from WJBscribe ("Boddy") on this matter.
-xeno
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: <philknight_AT_mail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:36
To: arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
Agreed.
Phil
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Xeno <xenowiki_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:45
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
I started drafting something... but stopped. PD is not going to let this one go quietly. He wants FT2 in the pillory so he can "win". Anyways, it's below, if anyone wants to continue to draft a reply to him.
WJBscribe's insight on the matter might be helpful, as well.
--- unfinished draft reply to PD ---
The Arbitration Committee has heard from you numerous times on this matter. We realize that this issue is of great importance to you and acknowledge your position advanced in previous correspondence that a public statement about these past matters is necessary to provide closure on the subject.
However, discovering "who knew what when" is outside our mandate, and largely irrelevant to your present community ban - which occurred after you had been unblocked by the Arbitration Committee in 2008 and has been compounded by further events unrelated to this subject.
Your claim that there has been some conspiracy to deceive the committee is tempered by the fact that WJBscribe took definitive action during the 2010 Arbitration Committee Elections to ensure the community was not in the position of voting for a candidate without being provided an adequate explanation about past events.
=== ends===
-x
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: David Fuchs <dfuchs.wiki_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 12:25
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
I would add to the end that "We have no receipt of any email from WJBscribe"; if there's one thing we can make clear is that there is certainly no conspiracy on that point.
--
David Fuchs
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Xeno <xenowiki_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 12:28
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
Actually we do have a copy, it was forwarded by Risker to arbcom-en-b in Dec 2010.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private.../2010-December/
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private...ber/000440.html
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private...ber/000441.html
-x
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Xeno <xenowiki_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 13:58
To: *Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
(copying list back in after probably unintentional direct reply)
No, not at all.
I was trying to come up with a good way of saying "users with access to priveleged information during a rapidly evolving situation per (policy/guideline/best practices) have good justification not to release privileged information to users without the requisite clearance" or somesuch - some way of saying that PD had no basis to demand the answers from WJB that he was demanding.
This all goes back to Jimmy's description of PD as "fragile". This issue has shattered him, and he is looking to us to help put him back together by publicly denouncing FT2 and declaring PD the white knight who saved Wikipedia.
-x
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 1:54 PM, David Fuchs <dfuchs.wiki_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
Ok then, still doesn't change the fact that there's no conspiracy though, and obviously we have no moral or legal reason to give that content to Damian.
--
David Fuchs
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: David Fuchs <dfuchs.wiki_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 14:02
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
Ah, sorry about that Xeno, thanks for fixing my messes
I honestly hope Damian is not deluded enough to think that's ever going to happen--if anything he's proving Wales' somewhatuncharitable description more apt. We are not responsible for denouncing FT2, and we're definitely not going to bring Damian back and award him a medal. Perhaps we have to be that blunt with him.
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Jonathan Clemens <clem4609_AT_pacificu.edu>
Date: Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 14:22
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
In case everyone hasn't sussed this out by now, I'm in favor of the direct response. :-)
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 14:25
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
I'm currently in favor of no response at all.
Newyorkbrad
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 14:49
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
Not only do we have Will's email to FT2, which we have discussed before, but Will has also replied to Peter's requests (some of which were were copied on). Peter Damian was expressly satisfied with the response at the time and apologized to Will for the intemperate tone of some of his emails. I thought it was an encouraging sign. Apparently there's been more communication since then, where Peter Damian must have asked for the 2010 emails to FT2. Will apparently would not give him that, but advised that ArbCom was given a copy. So now Peter Damian is trying to get it from us.
I like Xeno's draft well, enough, especially this sentence:That said, I doubt the message will sink in. I've tried explaining since the new year that his suspicions about WJBscribe are unfounded and completely misplaced. If it were not for WJBscribe's action, the facade of FT2's trust would have continued. Frankly, Will's done more than the committee on resolving the FT2 issue, to his credit. Peter Damian should consider him--if anything--a heroic whistle blower.
I suspect he's still miffed about the short-lived December 2007 block WJBscribe gave him. Investigating that remote incident will not help anyone; I wish he could move on.
Given that closure is unlikely, we should include a sentence indicating that this will also be our last email on the subject of WJBscribe's knowledge, and optionally that any further inquiries should go to the source: WJBscribe.
Frank
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 15:01
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
(re last paragraph) That will be taken by PD as an invitation by us for him to pester Wjbscribe. If we respond at all (which I'm not convinced we should), we should be urging him to drop the issue completely.
Newyorkbrad
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Elen of the Roads <elenoftheroads_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 15:07
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
Thank you for your email, the content of which has been noted. The committee will not be taking any action at this time, and further communication along these lines is unlikely to receive a response.
Elen of the Roads
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Elen of the Roads <elenoftheroads_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 15:08
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
That's the direct answer
Elen of the Roads
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 15:21
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad_AT_gmail.com>
Actually, yes, you're right.
Looking over his email, he's not actually asking for anything, and his appeal was dropped (which we explained not so long ago). Nothing would be an appropriate response. I also support Elen's terse message in lieu of a normal acknowledgment.
Frank
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Cas Liber <casliber01_AT_yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 15:25
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
The 'fragility' is a common theme. Look at Everyking over the years, as well we have Jack Merridew. sigh
Cas
From: Xeno <xenowiki_AT_gmail.com>
To: *Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Fri, 25 February, 2011 5:58:46 AM
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Xeno <xenowiki_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 15:31
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
Well, he's asking for The Truth and public disclosure of The Truth and denouncement of The Spreader Of Falsehoods. And you're right, there's not really a good way to respond to that in a way that doesn't make us look like part of the conspiracy.
-x
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 16:51
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
Yes, that's certainly what he hopes, but the flat language of his email asks for nothing. I think this sort of message is actually intended to fish for our feelings on the subject. Ottava has written similarly open-ended emails; a chain of propositions without conclusion.
At any rate, there's unlikely anything we could tell him that would satisfy him. More vigorous denials of a conspiracy will only reaffirm his belief that there is a conspiracy. That's the nature of conspiracy theories.
Frank
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
Subject: [arbcom-l] Suggestion
------------------------
From: Family <the.buckners_AT_btinternet.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 05:51
To: arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
>>"finding out who knew what when" was not within our scope
OK then here's my suggestion to keep things in scope.
1. Arbcom states that the block of Dec 2007 was inappropriate and wrong (or
chooses suitable wording). This avoids naming the blocking administrator,
or what the block was supposedly about, or oversighted edits or anything
like that. (Will Boddy has practically admitted to me privately that it was
very wrong).
2. Arbcom also states that the so-called 'community ban'
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...72#Peter_Damian
was inappropriate. Reason 1: an allegation of conflict of interest should
never be regarded as an 'attack' or 'breach of civility', should always be
taken seriously, and should never be a blocking or banning offence. Does
anyone recall the Benjiboi affair? This was an editor, now banned, who for
a long time successfully avoided COI allegations by using the 'civility' and
'AGF' rules of Wikipedia. Reason 2: a 'community ban' should involve more
of the 'community' than the motley collection of IRC admins who got together
on that page. See the complaint by another editor here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=367465567 .
That is all I am asking.
Edward
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Xeno <xenowiki_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 09:13
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
<list only, and yes I double checked>
Still pushing for vindication I see.
Can't say I blame him too much. The community ban was closed after only 9 hours. That's far too short, even if the ban was indicated.
-x
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 09:15
To: Family <the.buckners_AT_btinternet.com>
Cc: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
Hi Peter/Edward,
This message confirms that the Committee has received your correspondence.
Thank you for providing us with a these two items for consideration.
It could take a few weeks for us to work through this, and we may need
to ask you some follow up questions.
We will be in touch.
--
John Vandenberg
----------
From: Iridescent Wikipedia <iridescentwiki_AT_yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 09:28
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
I've not sent that reply to him yet—I wanted to wait until everyone had had the chance to object. Assuming we do go ahead with an unblock, would it be worthwhile including something along the lines of "we recognise that the process which led to the ban was flawed"? He does make a valid point; regardless of right or wrong, he was railroaded out under dubious circumstances.
From: Xeno <xenowiki_AT_gmail.com>
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sat, 26 March, 2011 13:13:05
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Suggestion
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Xeno <xenowiki_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 09:38
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
I would go ahead with the reply, irid.
It seems he won't give up without some conciliation; though I would say something more along the lines of "did not adhere to best practices concerning community bans".
As regards the 2007 block, something like "The Committee recognizes that the December 2007 block was a realtime decision, and realtime decisions often benefit from subsequent re-evaluation when further information comes to light." (I'm trying to go for something short of a complete exoneration and lacking admonishment of the blocking admin. Feel free to improve on this)
-x
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 09:40
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Iridescent Wikipedia
I'm not seeing it that way. He was blocked at AE on 30 July 2009, and
created a sock on 2 August 2009 to repeat the same thing he had been
blocked for. In those circumstances, people are usually indef blocked
fairly quickly and told to appeal to Arbcom.
--
John Vandenberg
----------
From: Iridescent Wikipedia <iridescentwiki_AT_yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 09:57
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
Depends how one looks at it. He undoubtedly breached his block and thus the rationale for the ban was technically correct, but the original block he breached was highly dubious to start with. Wikipedia has traditionally always cut some slack for people lashing out in frustration immediately after a block, particularly a disputable one. An eight-hour discussion—resulting in a "consensus" of such luminaries as Pastor Theo/Ecoleetage, Baseball Bugs, Law/Undertow, Rodhullandemu, Chillum and Roux—isn't adequate, particularly when the person under discussion has had their talkpage locked by those discussing the ban so is unable to reply to anything. My wording is specifically that "the process was flawed", not "the ban was wrong".
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb_AT_gmail.com>Sent: Sat, 26 March, 2011 13:40:40
<snip>
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Xeno <xenowiki_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 10:03
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
This is why I would prefer to straddle a middle ground:
The Arbitration Committee recognizes that the 2009 community ban discussion, having been closed after only nine hours, did not adhere to generally well-accepted best practices concerning such discussions.
"Flawed" is a little too strong, imo.
-x
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 10:06
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
To: John Vandenberg <jayvdb_AT_gmail.com>
Thank you - please use the damian email - my fault for using the other
address in the last message
..
----------
From: Iridescent Wikipedia <iridescentwiki_AT_yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 10:16
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
FWIW, on double-checking the actual Arbcom resolution that led to his indefblock, the actual wording is "Should Peter Damian interact with or make any comment concerning FT2, or make any other comment reasonably regarded as harassment or a personal attack, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator." For the very-much-involved Ryan Postlethwaite to interpret that as justification for a permanent ban is dubious to say the least.
Incidentally, the "attack page" which prompted the ban was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...52349&diff=prev, which while it undoubtedly breached the interaction ban was hardly a gross personal attack, given that it consisted entirely of verifiable facts and contained no speculation or libel at all.
From: Xeno <xenowiki_AT_gmail.com>Sent: Sat, 26 March, 2011 14:03:56
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 10:24
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Iridescent Wikipedia
We're slowing addressing that ...
I don't think it was flawed, or even less than ideal. This is what
happens in ban decisions which occur after actions like this. We was
in a bun-fight with FT2 on WR, and came over to WP to attack him,
twice. The second time was after an AE decision. Best practise is
not going to change any time soon for cases like this. The 'best
practise' is something we want to encourage for cases where there is a
legitimate need for the accused to say their piece, and to let a
broader cross section of the community look for options.
We'd need to look further back a little, but we may be able to concede
that the AE was flawed. That appears to have been wrapped up in about
five hours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...ng_Peter_Damian
We should also check when he _first_ emailed the committee to appeal
this community ban. I do this now. I'm not sure that he did appeal;
I think he kept writing articles using new accounts, making matters
worse.
----------
From: <philknight_AT_mail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 10:28
To: arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
Overall, I think the Wikipedia community has been somewhat unkind to Peter Damian, in a manner
that unfortunately often happens to whistle blowers.
However, I don't see anything especially wrong with the FT2 interaction restriction, the subsequent
block, or following the use of a sock, the community ban.
In my humble opinion, the problems started earlier than that, and from there, gained momentum. In
addition, as Jimbo notes, he was badly affected by the way he was treated.
In regard to the specific wording, I could live with the 'process was flawed'. I agree with Xeno that
it's slightly strong, however, if need be, we could later clarify that we felt 9 hours for a community
ban was a little on the short side.
Anyway, if by using this form of words, he'd be able to put the past behind him, that's probably worthwhile.
Phil
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Marc A. Pelletier <marc_AT_uberbox.org>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 10:30
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
I think you're being unjustifiably optimistic.
-- Coren / Marc
----------
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 10:31
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Iridescent Wikipedia
The very first sentence is speculation.
"FT2 tacitly admits to being User:TBP"
FT2 categorically denies being TBP. FT2 may be lying, and his
explanation hard to believe, but it is much more difficult to
disprove. I know; I've tried. So have many others. Do you seriously
think FT2 would still be on functionaries-en if it had been proven
that he had lied about this? I'd love it if we could prove this, and
that would be the vindication that PD badly needs.
----------
From: Xeno <xenowiki_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 10:37
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
I must admit that http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...22&#entry186122 seems a lot like admitting the connection, given that FT2 doesn't deny it (instead asking for clemency).
-x
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 10:44
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 1:31 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
>..
I should add that I know people are often blocked as socks on shakier
evidence than FT2=TBP.
That is part of what makes this very frustrating for PD, and Arbcom
members trying to explain why nothing has been done.
Arbcom could decide it was a sock in a case, and has cause to accept
this 'old' evidence due to FT2's insistence that TBP is not his (as
recently as the last election, where he did not list it publicly and
did not disclose it to Arbcom). But that would be a decision made by
evaluating the evidence ('balance of probabilities'), rather than
admission or beyond reasonable doubt.
----------
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 11:03
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
Afaics, Ed didnt appeal to the committee in 2009. I've checked using
the two email addressed we have in this thread; I don't know of any
others. I've also eyeballs all mentions of 'Peter Damian' throughout
2009.
This is how Ed appealed:
http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:The_Wik...int_of_View/TBP
http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:The_Wik...Damian_Evidence
----------
From: Elen of the Roads <elenoftheroads_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 14:01
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
Can we rewind for a minute please. Everyone has focussed on his subsequent community ban, but he has asked first
And claims that
Then everyone remember that all of the Dec 2007 stuff is laid out in loving detail at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbc...wiki/Wpuser:FT2
There was absolutely nothing wrong with any of the blocks imposed on Peter Damian in December 2007. His behaviour was extreme - on several occasions he was unblocked only to return to the fray. The issue of who knew when that DG had oversighted some of FT2's edits is a total red herring - maybe Will Boddy feels a chump for not being quick enough to realise what had happened, or that FT2 was telling fibs, but there is no way that the committee could say that any of the blocks were inappropriate or wrong.
Elen of the Roads
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Iridescent Wikipedia <iridescentwiki_AT_yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 15:07
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
Not as simple as that. Remember, John and I (and most of the others) had ringside seats when it happened; it's not quite as simple as "someone had a tantrum, flared out and got blocked". From the outside looking in, what happened there could certainly be interpreted as FT2 taking a dislike to PD over something said off-wiki, baiting him into saying something inappropriate, and then pulling every string he could to get the evidence hidden. (Some of FT2s animal posts have—notoriously—been vanished, but the deleted [[User:FT2/ap]] is still viewable and is fairly representative; PD wasn't just plucking these accusations out of thin air.) It's entirely understandable why PD thinks there was and is a conspiracy against him for daring to blow the whistle (an editor without FT2's connections would have had a good chance of being instantly indeffed for the animal stuff), regardless of whether what happened was actually just a giant collective screw-up.
From: Elen of the Roads <elenoftheroads_AT_gmail.com>Sent: Sat, 26 March, 2011 18:01:54
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 15:10
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
The way forward is simply to decide whether it would be acceptable for
Peter Damian to be allowed to edit again now, and if so, on what
conditions. I feel no obligation to make any statement about whether
a block from three-plus years ago was good or bad or indifferent.
Newyorkbrad
----------
From: Iridescent Wikipedia <iridescentwiki_AT_yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 15:26
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
Yes and no. From the Wikipedia point of view we should be looking forward not back, but if this isn't addressed in some way it will keep being the skeleton in the corner. It is not a great secret that Wikipedia's internal administration was seriously messed up in 2007 and a lot of people (including PD) were caught in the crossfire from the internal skirmishes, and that the problems caused back then have never satisfactorily been addressed. (The fallout from Durova v Giano, Epbr123 v Malleus, PD v FT2, Majorly's sockfarm v Lara and Slimvirgin v everyone else, all of which happened around that time and none of which were properly resolved, are all still poisoning internal relationships on the project to this day.)
A form of words like "we recognize that the process was flawed" doesn't point fingers at any one individual, but makes it clear that this is an offer of reconciliation, not a presidential pardon. (In legalese, I guess it would be the difference between "not guilty by reason of insanity" and "absolute discharge".) The form of words used doesn't affect Wikipedia either way, but how PD interprets it could be the difference between us getting a productive and worthwhile editor or getting Greg Kohs 2.0.
From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad_AT_gmail.com>Sent: Sat, 26 March, 2011 19:10:35
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Cas Liber <casliber01_AT_yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 17:06
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
<snip>
<snip>
The speculation is more plausible than the denial, which I for one can't accept. But yeah, there is a lack of incontrovertible proof unless someone wanted to do a grammar and time analysis. I'd been meaning to look at it myself one day, but found myself diverted to any one of several hundred more pressing and more enjoyable tasks.
Cas
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 17:23
To: Cas Liber <casliber01_AT_yahoo.com>, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
Grammar analysis of the content doesn't help, as FT2 asserts he sent
text to TBP who included it as-is. Grammar analysis of the e/s is
more useful as FT2 cant say that he told TBP what to put in the e/s.
e/s analysis has been done by two people and there are strong
similarities. Again it would be good enough to be used to justify a
sock accusation against a new user, but it would be a world of pain
for Arbcom to use it against a functionary who has broad support
within the community (e.g. the reasonable recent election given he
withdrew, with a growing cloud bearing down on him) and has ties with
WMF (I'm not sure of all the details of this).
Cas, or any other arb, if you want the e/s analysis let me know.
If 'ArbCom' is going to review this, I'll post it to the wiki.
----------
From: Cas Liber <casliber01_AT_yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 17:30
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
(a) I think 'process was flawed' is fine. It's succinct, focuses on process and not editors and is weaker than 'wrong'. Anything more wordy makes us look like some sort of fumbling bureacracy
(b) One thing that happened to me between my last time on arbcom and now was an ongoing clashing of heads with Lar, during which time (I feel) he cast aspersions over my honesty by twisting my own words. This enraged me more than any of my spats on deletion/inclusion pages as it subtly raised issues with my character. Luckily anyone I asked to look at it quickly (and justifiably) became bored and just saw two old farts chest-thumping. My point is it can be quite easy to sit on this committee and judge others, but after that, and being on the receiving end of some comments, I did find myself more sympathetic to many editors who've lost their tempers in arguments and been discussed. Hence going the extra mile for a potentially valued contributor might have underlying reasons along this.
© Add to iridescents' comments about 'old way ' of doing things - Kirill's comment about Fred's blocking of a party in an arb request. Fred making flippant and inappropriate comments to Giano during a case...and then having the temerity to harp on about civility.
(d) Thinking about how editors get angry and what they do - I see some themes - I see folks who get angry/upset, fire off some invective, but after a time it blows over, then I see editors who adopt the 'don't get mad get even' idea - bide their time, backchannel and try to keep a more or less civil face while undermining those they want to get back at ('the enemy of my enemy is my friend' theme) - this comes back time and again. Luckily some editors have burnt too many by backchanneling and the community gets some awareness of those who are untrustworthy but it's still problematic. And we deal with this with all the maturity of an 11 year old. We have folks harping about civility on this list but passing by a possible hacking attempt by Jack Merridew on A Nobody's password months and months after the dust up?? (sorry, shouldn't comment on that but really)
(e) Majorly's sockfarm??? I missed that one.
Cas
From: Iridescent Wikipedia <iridescentwiki_AT_yahoo.co.uk>
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, 27 March 2011 6:26 AM
<snip>
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Cas Liber <casliber01_AT_yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 17:35
To: John Vandenberg <jayvdb_AT_gmail.com>, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
Dang, forgot about the text-sending.
I was tempted about a motion at one time when this was active along the lines of:
"The committee acknowledges FT2's denial that he is TBP but has difficulties accepting his explanation."
i.e. not calling him out or accusing him but stating we have trouble accepting it (which I certainly do) and leaving it at that.
Cas
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb_AT_gmail.com>
To: Cas Liber <casliber01_AT_yahoo.com>; English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, 27 March 2011 8:23 AM
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 17:51
To: Cas Liber <casliber01_AT_yahoo.com>, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
Calling it a 'hacking' attempt is a stretch; only if Merridew had
control of the email account could it be hacking.
IMO it was harassment, and should have been dealt with directly.
--
John Vandenberg
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
----------
From: Iridescent Wikipedia <iridescentwiki_AT_yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 17:51
To: Cas Liber <casliber01_AT_yahoo.com>, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
Not really a sockfarm, more a sock-smallholding: Majorly, Al Tally, and How Do You Turn This On. The Al Tally account was an open secret, but AFAIK I was the only person to make the connection with HDYTTO—he went to great lengths there. To his credit he 'fessed up immediately when challenged; given that he didn't seem to be votestacking with it and appeared to be treating it purely as a "how long can I run two accounts without being spotted?" exercise, I didn't spread the news. It's why he kept uncharacteristically quiet when Law was caught, despite his loathing for Chip and Lara.
From: Cas Liber <casliber01_AT_yahoo.com>Sent: Sat, 26 March, 2011 21:30:10<snip>
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Cas Liber <casliber01_AT_yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 17:59
To: John Vandenberg <jayvdb_AT_gmail.com>, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
? - it was an attempt, albeit an unsuccessful on...and speaking of JM, there was something about a compromised account recently - (need to find link but multitasking ++ at present)
Cas
Sent: Sunday, 27 March 2011 8:51 AM
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 18:01
To: Cas Liber <casliber01_AT_yahoo.com>
Cc: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
It is not even an attempt at hacking.
JM is knows he can't gain access to the account by initiating a password reset.
--
John Vandenberg
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
----------
From: Cas Liber <casliber01_AT_yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 18:08
To: John Vandenberg <jayvdb_AT_gmail.com>
Cc: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
Yeah true, I should have realised that
Cas
To: Cas Liber <casliber01_AT_yahoo.com>
Cc: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, 27 March 2011 9:01 AM
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 18:28
To: Cas Liber <casliber01_AT_yahoo.com>, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
Unlike John, I think both of the blocks in question are below standards, at best. (Although his actions after the blocks were as well, no doubt.)
Unlike Iridescent, I think any comment we could make on them would be counter-productive in the extreme, and I strongly oppose any formal repudiation of them. I don't even support posting Xeno's compromise (about the 2007 block being based on imperfect realtime decisions), although I certainly agree with his statement.
PD's biggest stumbling blocks are his obsession with these faint events and a vast over-estimation of his own importance and the conspiracies against them. Any statement about these blocks makes his problems worse, not better. We should treat this as we would treat any short-lived block in freakin' 2007, and flawed community ban from 2009. That is, we should (1) not comment at all on the 2007 block, and (2) only implicitly reject the 2009 process by allowing him another chance to edit. Anything more feeds the ego monster and validates his skewed worldview.
Frank
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 18:31
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
Who would be blocked for what, now?
Don't get me wrong--I agree FT2 has clout, but I don't see how anyone would block him for making vaguely pro-bestial edits.
Frank
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 18:34
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
I actually don't agree that it was a great block, but you will note that it was very quickly undone. Peter Damian's recent axe-grinding against Wjbscribe for a few hours of blockage in 2007 is a preview of what we're in for if we go down this road.
Frank
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Iridescent Wikipedia <iridescentwiki_AT_yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 18:50
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
I think you're underestimating the strength of the "think of the children!" tendency among Wikipedia admins; policy isn't just what's written down, but custom-and-practice. Create a new account, post such stuff to your userspace as "The jury is still out on the extent to which human-animal sexual activity is necessarily harmful", laced with external links such as http://tijuanabibles.org/cgi-bin/hazel.cgi...B073&fullsize=0 (NSFW!!!), and I'll lay dollars to nickels that you're blocked within a week. PD may be nuts, but he's not stupid; if there hadn't been something to hide, FT2 wouldn't have gone to such lengths to hide it.
From: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke_AT_gmail.com>Sent: Sat, 26 March, 2011 22:31:06
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Xeno <xenowiki_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 18:51
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
Can't say I disagree. If we can just get Peter to drop it, that would be better than stirring up years-old events.
-x
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 23:08
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
Insofar that you think FT2 was in any risk at all from exposure of bestiality edits, I think you're overselling Peter Damian's importance to his legacy. Peter Damian was very late to that ArbCom election, so perhaps his clear victory in it is a flawed data point, but observe less than a year later when FT2 noticeably lacked support the VP ArbCom straw poll. No trace of the pedophile issue there, even though PD made a lot of noise on WR (drawing out FT2 for several mutually embarrassing clean language flame wars). At that junction, FT2 was opposed due to the poor handling of OrangeMarlin and SV block. Even among those who freely and popularly their disapproved of him, the zoophilia edits in 2006 apparently didn't budge the needle.
I have been accused of having it in for FT2 since day 1 on the committee. I really never did--I expected that arbcom-l archive would justify the OM affair, while I felt it did the reverse. My point is that even with my supposed anti-FT2 agenda, I believe that the zoo issue made and makes no difference to the Wikipedia "community," which we all know, love, and hate. PD seems to imagine that he will be celebrated as a hero when the evil dictator FT2 is driven from the site. This is an unhelpful fantasy.
Frank
P.S.: Would you actually put up money for that bet? I would certainly take it if you were covering 10-to-1. It would have to be a large enough wager to make me figure out how to feign being a bestialist, however. Here's a guy who gave it a short go 14 months ago, and was never even warned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...s/James_D_Smith He got zero pushback for being an openly declared zoophile, but he was criticized for supposedly promoting a zoophile movie (that's the Wikipedia I know: fine with "hobbyists" of all persuasions, but suspicious of all hints of commercial activity).
When FT2 started editing, several more-or-less openly disclosed pedophiles were all over their articles of interest. They were only swept out because "think of the children" was a particularly forceful argument for pedophiles, and even that debate was narrowly won. With zoophilia, it's much more difficult to make such an argument, and I think you're underestimating the strength of the "not censored" tendency of the site. "Not censored" usually wins over "mere" moral objections. It won over an act of Jimbo to remove a photo of autofellatio out of the main article to be behind a link. As you can see by the article today "not censored" >> "Jimbo Wales"
Has Wikipedia ever even banned a user for moral content-related objections except for pedophilia? I cannot think of any examples.
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Cas Liber <casliber01_AT_yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 00:35
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
<snip>
I have been accused of having it in for FT2 since day 1 on the committee. I really never did--I expected that arbcom-l archive would justify the OM affair, while I felt it did the reverse. My point is that even with my supposed anti-FT2 agenda, I believe that the zoo issue made and makes no difference to the Wikipedia "community," which we all know, love, and hate. <snip>
Hmm, has anyone said that to you Frank (about 'having it in' for FT2)? My impression was you had an open mind when we all got here but got progressively fed up with all the non-answers from FT2. And even then you kept your cool, just asked him to answer straight, in more direct terms.
Cas
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
----------
From: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 01:10
To: Cas Liber <casliber01_AT_yahoo.com>, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l_AT_lists.wikimedia.org>
I
