User talk:Peter Damian
Hello. I have moved this conversation here as it's not really got anything to do with the 2012 Activity Plan. Regards, The Land 14:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Warning
Just to repeat what I said here, if you make another allegation along the lines of "you are covering up a case of misrepresentation to the Charities Commission", you are very quickly going to be blocked from this wiki. The Land 15:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Block rationale
(moved here from Talk:Contact Us ) User;Fæ locked his user talk and then his user page. He wrote, "Emailing is available on the left of this screen, if you need a free soapbax)"[1] – I'm confused about the soapbox thing, but also I can't see any email, I think this may only be avaiable for non-IPs?67.168.135.107 10:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Email addresses for all Board members are available here. Though I don't know why you haven't logged in, Edward, or why you're pretending to be confused. The Land 14:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- If you check that IP you will see it is nothing to do with me. Quite a few people are apparently interested in this case of possible misrepresentation to UKCC. And thanks for moving that whole thread, which was intimately related to the Activity Plan, to my talk page. You are all doing your little bit to cover this up, aren't you. Peter Damian 14:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- If you make another allegation along the lines of "you are covering up a case of misrepresentation to the Charities Commission", you are very quickly going to be blocked from this wiki. Regards, The Land 15:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ahem, I said this is a case of possible misrepresentation to the UKCC. I stand by this, without reservation. It is not certain, it is clearly possible. Everything I have seen so far, from the continuing obfuscation and misrepresentation by various members of this wiki, to the failure to supply any information about what we know exists, suggests something is not right at all. You are still, after several weeks, unable to supply the names of those involved in the submission itself. It is beyond belief. As regards blocking or banning, I have been blocked for over two years from Wikipedia.en for my allegations of conflict of interest, so I have no difficulty with that. It merely strengthens my case. Edward Buckner 15:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Courts don't have much time for people who argue that the weasel word "possible" takes the content out of a defamatory statement, and nor do I. You are not welcome to post such allegations on this Wiki, and accordingly I am blocking you from editing. The Land 17:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ahem, I said this is a case of possible misrepresentation to the UKCC. I stand by this, without reservation. It is not certain, it is clearly possible. Everything I have seen so far, from the continuing obfuscation and misrepresentation by various members of this wiki, to the failure to supply any information about what we know exists, suggests something is not right at all. You are still, after several weeks, unable to supply the names of those involved in the submission itself. It is beyond belief. As regards blocking or banning, I have been blocked for over two years from Wikipedia.en for my allegations of conflict of interest, so I have no difficulty with that. It merely strengthens my case. Edward Buckner 15:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- If you make another allegation along the lines of "you are covering up a case of misrepresentation to the Charities Commission", you are very quickly going to be blocked from this wiki. Regards, The Land 15:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- If you check that IP you will see it is nothing to do with me. Quite a few people are apparently interested in this case of possible misrepresentation to UKCC. And thanks for moving that whole thread, which was intimately related to the Activity Plan, to my talk page. You are all doing your little bit to cover this up, aren't you. Peter Damian 14:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Chris/The Land, could you please clarify upon what authority you have made this block? Was it a decision of the board, or was it done in a personal capacity? --Tango 18:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Regardless, it can be taken as evidence of a coverup, which put TheLand in serious jeopardy. It was a really bad move and would actually aid in Edward's claims that this is not a charity. 184.221.65.31 18:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am including the details of this block in my own submission to the UKCC, hopefully completed by the weekend. Peter Damian 18:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I am not alleging fraud
Just so we are clear. I am not saying any fraudulent activity has taken place. I merely have some questions about the recent submission to the UK charity commission, and I raised some doubts about whether that submission, part of which I have seen but not published, correctly represents the facts about Wikipedia. It's extraordinary these questions should result in a block. And I second Tango's question. Is WMUK blocking these questions? Did the board sanction this block? Peter Damian 21:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have restored your few questions (actually, not just a few questions, some 60kb of them) below. I am not sure why you removed them. I think it is important that people see the lengthy responses you have already received on this site from both Board members and other volunteers. As you stand by your comments yesterday, I stand by my reaction to them. And just to be clear, I am not "blocking you from asking questions", merely blocking you from using this site to post allegations that we have misled the Charities Commission and are engaging in a cover-up, which seems to continue to be your position. The Land 19:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am not alleging that you have misled the Charity Commission. I continue to express concern that you have misled the Charity Commission. Allegations and expressions of concern are entirely different. Please note I was expressly asked by Roger Bamkin to put my concerns on the page from which you have deleted my questions (which remain unanswered). Peter Damian 22:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- AND IT WAS YOU WHO REMOVED THE QUESTIONS [2]. Peter Damian 22:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- AND THOSE PITIFUL RESPONSES DID NOT ANSWER THE ORIGINAL QUESTIONS. Peter Damian 22:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Archiving
To /Archive 1 (however I do not have permission, oh well). Please move the deleted questions [3] to the archive above. I do not have permission to create that page, owing to the punitive block. And please do not disrupt my talk page by copying them back here. Peter Damian 22:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Reply
I have left an answer to your question on my talkpage. Regards, AndrewRT 13:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your answer (namely to the question, who was involved in the 26 September UKCC submission). Obviously I can't reply on your page. Can you clarify if the board agreed to this block? I originally asked Roger Bamkin the same questions by email, but he refused to reply, saying that I should put all my questions via this page Talk:2012_Activity_Plan. Someone called 'the Land' (i.e. Keating, another director) then deleted the relevant parts of that page, clearly not having communicated with Bamkin. I then expressed concern about misrepresention to the UKCC. I made no allegations, merely expressed concern. Now I am blocked. Surely you can see, or at least one of the directors can see, that this is not a sensible approach? The UKCC requires that plaintiffs take up their case with the charity in the first case. I will tell that that I was blocked when I did so, but this is not helping your case, such as it is. Can you clarify the reason for the block, please? Edward 18:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- If your question is why were you blocked from the WMUK wiki then I have to ask you to ask the person who blocked you. Did you have any more questions for me? AndrewRT 00:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is not very helpful. Do you agree to the block? [Which is a question to you]. I am also asking some pertinent questions about WMUK's submission to the UK charity commission, and I have been unreasonably blocked. Given that the submission was the responsibility of all the board members, not just Mr Keating's, shouldn't the block also be the responsibility of the board? It is a UKCC requirement that any issues, problems or questions be taken up with the charity directors in the first place. Roger Bamkin has declined to answer questions by email, directing me to the page that is now deleted. No one else has given material answers to my questions. My main question, given that the FOI request gives me most of the original documentation, is who actually put together the submission, and sent the emails to the charity commission, via the solicitors. I strongly suspect Ashley Haeften, but I would like someone to confirm this. When I asked Haeften on his talk page, he deleted it. I love this commitment to openness and transparency that you talk about. Peter Damian 14:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Why do you need to know who wrote it? You have been told that all communications were approved by the board, so the entire board is responsible for them regardless of who actually typed them up. --Tango 15:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- You need to understand the difference between 'write something' as in the sense of 'be the main author of' and 'type something'. In any case, the board is now being a bit more helpful in providing me this information by email, so the question is now irrelevant.Peter Damian 10:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Why do you need to know who wrote it? You have been told that all communications were approved by the board, so the entire board is responsible for them regardless of who actually typed them up. --Tango 15:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is not very helpful. Do you agree to the block? [Which is a question to you]. I am also asking some pertinent questions about WMUK's submission to the UK charity commission, and I have been unreasonably blocked. Given that the submission was the responsibility of all the board members, not just Mr Keating's, shouldn't the block also be the responsibility of the board? It is a UKCC requirement that any issues, problems or questions be taken up with the charity directors in the first place. Roger Bamkin has declined to answer questions by email, directing me to the page that is now deleted. No one else has given material answers to my questions. My main question, given that the FOI request gives me most of the original documentation, is who actually put together the submission, and sent the emails to the charity commission, via the solicitors. I strongly suspect Ashley Haeften, but I would like someone to confirm this. When I asked Haeften on his talk page, he deleted it. I love this commitment to openness and transparency that you talk about. Peter Damian 14:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- If your question is why were you blocked from the WMUK wiki then I have to ask you to ask the person who blocked you. Did you have any more questions for me? AndrewRT 00:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Unblocking your account
Hi Peter. At Wikimania I remember you asking me to unblock your account on this wiki. Given that there is now a constructive relationship between Wikimedia UK and you, I have done so. Welcome back. The Land (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2014 (BST)