Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Peter Damian

I made a recent unblock request, after a period of cessation in hostilities. They have declined of course. The interesting thing is that they were prepared to grant an unblock in February this year. However, at that time I was asking that they make public certain things regarding my blocks. They declined, as the leaked email from Xeno, shows, because to do so would be difficult without demonstrating there really was a conspiracy. See this leaked email.

In the most recent request, I gave absolutely no conditions, except that I could ask questions during the upcoming election. So why are they now declining the unblock? What has changed?

I have emailed back, saying I now am not even asking for that condition. Nothing whatsoever. I will even agree not to ask any questions at the election.

Of course, they will now see that if they grant the conditionless unblock, they will have conceded that the reason for the current decline was wanting to ask the difficult questions.

So my reasoning is that they will decline the current unblock request.

Most people here will say the usual thing, they are weak, corrupt, etc. I continue with my hope in human nature, and that good will prevail at some point.

Posted by: thekohser

Just power cycle your modem and come back as a new character, then ask all the election questions you want!

Posted by: Peter Damian

No I come back as myself. As I pointed out just now in an email to Arbcom, the longer they demonstrably evade any public questioning on certain issues, the worse for them.

If I come back as a 'sock', that will play into their hands. The evidence remains forever. Wikipedians, and the individual Arbcom members, come and go.

Actually, I can't believe they are being quite so unintelligent.

Posted by: RMHED

They're probably saying the exact same thing about you.

Posted by: Kevin

It doesn't really gel with the recent posts here about the early days of Wikipedia, where everything was love and roses, and nothing was more noble than bringing an errant brother back to the fold.

Posted by: Ottava

You do know that such a requirement is a ruse, right?

You are best served spending your time digging up all the problems on a handful of the people who have been there a long time and making a good case on why they should not be re-elected.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Which I want to do, on the Wiki. The original vision of this community was that anyone who wished to do so, politely and with dignity, should be allowed to do so.

So I am asking any current Arbcom member, why I cannot be unblocked, to do so. This was the original Wiki vision. Information and knowledge must be free.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Funny, but I actually toyed with doing the same thing. However, I believe that my time would be wasted.

Posted by: Peter Damian

I am going for it this time. I waited 6 months. I have threatened no one. No rude names, no violence, pure Wikipedian ideals.

Why are none of the cowards from the Arbcom, some of whom made so many promises, visiting here?

Where is they? Come on. I did everything you asked. What has changed? What questions are you afraid of?

Just spelling it out

Posted by: melloden

Why do you want to return? What is it about Wikipedia that draws you back to the land of antisocial nerds and pedophiles? Do you really want to be let back by ArbCom, the league of pussies? Even if they did let you back, Peter, I don't see any future in it for you.

Posted by: Ottava

My one year block was magicked into an indef with all sorts of strange claims. What do you really expect? Remember, it is easier to get rid of you and make up claims than it is to get back once you are out. That is why they shove people out as fast as they can.

Posted by: mbz1

Nothing could be compared to gwen gale's description of the members of arbcom:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Wilkes,_Wyss_and_Onefortyone/Proposed_decision&diff=prev&oldid=31826736

Posted by: thekohser

I see what you did there.

Posted by: Peter Damian

I just want to clear my name of this ridiculous block. For the record

1. The reason for the block (now more than 2 years ago) was my posting information about an Arb socking. It was posted on my talk page, and contained no personal information. Arbcom concede that.

2. It was begun at 6 o'clock and closed 6 hours later, on August 3 2009. The policy is for 24 hours to give other editors a chance. The block was orchestrated out of IRC and included some socks, plus a few editors later banned themselves. Arbcom also concede that.

3. I have used so-called 'socks' since then, but sequentially only, never to game a dispute or an election, and to create articles. E.g. 'History of Logic' was almost entirely written by these 'socks'. It would have gone to FA except an administrator broke up the FA process.

4. There has been none of this so-called socking since February this year.

I just discovered the current ban ruling was rushed through without the approval of all arbitrators. I suspect Coren, who has been a consistent enemy. The question they don't want asked is why they covered up the affair of the arbitrator who threatened to contact the employers of an editor's wife, because the editor had used her computer (perfectly legally) at work, to edit Wikipedia.

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

The problem is that you are RIGHT. Therefore, there is no chance in hell (not even if it freezes over) that your account gets unblocked.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

Peter, if I were to start a community discussion somewhere, would that help?

Posted by: Peter Damian

Yes that would help, but timing is everything. Content writers are at an inherent disadvantage because the people they know tend to be absent for periods, such as this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/KD_Tries_Again . The administrators by contrast have an effective and rapid strike force, with central communications at IRC. Furthermore, any canvassing by non-admins will rapidly be stamped on and blocks handed out like lollipops.

There are some supporters who have offered to start a discussion and privately emailed me, can anyone who would like to help email me - edward AT logicmuseum.com.

If I can get 100 supporters then it would be worth starting a petition, something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=368243961#Proposal_to_unblock_Peter_Damian which failed, but only narrowly. Notice all the support from the content writers, and the extreme lack of it and hostility from the admins.

It's like this incredible machine you cannot beat. And the machine is designed to prevent any real improvement to the project.

Thanks Michael.

Posted by: lilburne

Quick question but weren't you disengaging entirely from the site, why even bother going back?

Posted by: Peter Damian

Since February. But I would like an unblock whatever. And now that my book on Scotus looks increasingly likely to be published, and with that the unnerving prospect of someone writing a shitty biography, I would like some sort of access to the thing.

Ed

Posted by: Ottava

Even if he said he was wrong, grovelled, etc., he wouldn't be unblocked. Remember, that claim is only an excuse that will merely shift to a new one if it is overcome. That is what happens when you have things like "indefinite".

Posted by: mbz1

What does it mean your block is on Scotus? Do you have a link? Thanks.

Posted by: thekohser

Book, not block. Blockhead.

A word of advice to Peter Damian -- if you should ever get a shitty biography about yourself on Wikipedia, you'd have more power to effect improvements on that biography if your user account was NOT clearly associated with you.

(I marvel at the types of people who persistently want to "play by the rules" in a game they've been told dozens of times is crooked and rigged by the owners in cahoots with the referees.)

Posted by: mbz1

Posted by: melloden

I assume it means he is writing a book about the US Supreme Court.