The saga continues. Yesterday I posted this
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=305125582which was interpreted as a veiled 'attack', although it does not mention anyone by name. So there is a second AE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb..._Damian_.282.29where FT2 now complains, together with a contradictory 'commitment to avoid engagment'. Slim Virgin asks
QUOTE
FT, can you say definitively whether you were TBP (talk · contribs)? Peter was blocked for having posted a sockpuppet tag on that page, saying you had admitted it somewhere. I don't defend his posting the tag, or reverting to retain it, but it would be good to know whether there was truth in what he was saying, even if he expressed it inappropriately. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
FT2 tacitly admitted it was his sock on an earlier version his user page
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...r_article_edits. He brags "Created (or effectively rewritten) from scratch: [ ... ] Hani Miletski ... Kenneth Pinyan [ ... ]"
Both were created and substantially written by TBP, with only minor input from the FT2 account. (This was discovered by Tarantino of Wikipedia Review).
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history The contributions of the FT2 account was one sentence
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=52713521. By contrast the TBP account created and expanded the article nearly into its present form
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=52708359FT2 originally denied this on Wikipedia Review earlier in 2009.
This post has been edited by Peter Damian: 
Mother of Mercy, is this the end of Peter Damian?
