Peter Damian blocked by Cohen, turn up for the books Options

[Peter Damian]

Despite requesting the page be left for my Arbcom case, I have been blocked by Cohen as an 'abusive sockpuppet' - and despite my declaration on the page of exactly who I was.

This refers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sus...ts/Peter_Damian

OK he has deleted the block notice containing my real name. But I am allowed, I believe, to have an account for the purposes of contesting the block.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Thu 24th April 2008, 5:36pm

[Moulton]

That's the thing about an MMPORG. No one can reliably keep track of who's an ally and who's an enemy. So you get admins fighting each other over how to fight the guy you really wanna fight against.

[Sceptre]

Since when did the developers set the tool to give the block button separately on?

[Peter Damian]

Sorry, the block was not by Lawrence, but he ran to Thatcher, and now the other Peter is blocked.

Blocked I don't know what rules page you read that you think says you can make a sockpuppet account to file an appeal. The policy is that banned users may only appeal by email to the Arbitrators. In some cases, Arbcom will authorize a public appeal, at which point your original account will be unblocked (or perhaps alternate arrangements made in your case). However, I have just spoken with FloNight and Arbcom does not authorize a public appeal at this time. Please continue to email them. Thatcher 17:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes but I have continued to email them. I don't think it is unreasonable to use this page and user space simply to prepare a case. Thatcher, can you perhaps give me a reason why? And please note my original account references my real-life name, as I have already explained. Please, one ounce of reasonableness. Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Damian"

Extraordinary. FT2 himself removes the 'abusive sockpuppet' tag with the comment (if this user is who I think it is, then the tag's wrong; they have never socked in their life as best I know.) Quite right. ~~~~

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Thu 24th April 2008, 6:20pm

[Pumpkin Muffins]

Despite requesting the page be left for my Arbcom case, I have been blocked by Cohen as an 'abusive sockpuppet' - and despite my declaration on the page of exactly who I was.

This refers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sus...ts/Peter_Damian

OK he has deleted the block notice containing my real name. But I am allowed, I believe, to have an account for the purposes of contesting the block.

Jeeze, could you please list your usernames, the new names they were moved to, the accounts where most of your contributions came from and the account that got the original indef block?

The note you left on Giano's page doesn't make it easy. I doubt anybody is going to work too hard to help you if you don't make the effort yourself.

-edit-

OK, It looks like most of your edits are from Renamed user 4. Right? But Renamed user 4 isn't blocked.

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins: Thu 24th April 2008, 7:31pm

[Peter Damian]

The note you left on Giano's page doesn't make it easy. I doubt anybody is going to work too hard to help you if you don't make the effort yourself.

OK, It looks like most of your edits are from Renamed user 4. Right?

Correct. That was my only account (apart from about two minutes at renamed user 5). I did by the way leave a link on the new user page to show who I was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=198641388

The note you left on Giano's page doesn't make it easy. I doubt anybody is going to work too hard to help you if you don't make the effort yourself.

OK, It looks like most of your edits are from Renamed user 4. Right?

Correct. That was my only account (apart from about two minutes at renamed user 5). I did by the way leave a link on the new user page to show who I was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=198641388

Renamed user 4 IS blocked under my original RL name.

[Pumpkin Muffins]

Renamed user 4 IS blocked under my original RL name.

---see below---

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins: Thu 24th April 2008, 8:53pm

[Peter Damian]

Renamed user 4 IS blocked under my original RL name.

Sorry, I'm still confused here:

What account has the block that you want to appeal?

Has that account been moved to a new name with the edit history intact?

Is your RL name 'Peter Damian' ?

Why don't you edit from the "Renamed user 4" account?

-edit-

Where can I find the edit that earned the indef block you described on Giano's page.

The chronology is somewhat complicated and I wanted the 'Damian' user page to set up the links. I will do that shortly.

I am appealing the Renamed user 4 block. I'll PM you with a relevant diff. Unfortunately the diff pages have my real name plastered with red links all over them, and I'm still pondering the wisdom of doing all of this.

[Pumpkin Muffins]

The chronology is somewhat complicated and I wanted the 'Damian' user page to set up the links. I will do that shortly.

I am appealing the Renamed user 4 block. I'll PM you with a relevant diff. Unfortunately the diff pages have my real name plastered with red links all over them, and I'm still pondering the wisdom of doing all of this.

OK, I think I understand, thanks for being patient.

Is "Renamed user 4" blocked even though it doesn't show in the log, because the original account it was moved from was blocked? didn't know that was possible.

[No one of consequence]

The chronology is somewhat complicated and I wanted the 'Damian' user page to set up the links. I will do that shortly.

I am appealing the Renamed user 4 block. I'll PM you with a relevant diff. Unfortunately the diff pages have my real name plastered with red links all over them, and I'm still pondering the wisdom of doing all of this.

OK, I think I understand, thanks for being patient.

Is "Renamed user 4" blocked even though it doesn't show in the log, because the original account it was moved from was blocked? didn't know that was possible.

Technically it is not blocked, however I'm sure that if he started to edit, someone would spot the unusual name, figure it out, and apply a new block. Then the block log would have an indelible link to his old account, which he is trying to avoid. So best not to push that button, I think.

[Random832]

Technically it is not blocked, however I'm sure that if he started to edit, someone would spot the unusual name, figure it out, and apply a new block. Then the block log would have an indelible link to his old account, which he is trying to avoid. So best not to push that button, I think.

Yes, the "Renamed user 4" account is blocked. Block logs did not move with user renames until recently, but the block is still in effect.

[Jon Awbrey]

Dear Mods And Staff,

We appear to need a new forum for Wikipedia Review members who are rushing to Fall On Their Swords (WP:FOTS) for the diversion of the Wiki-Pan-Et-Circus Crowds.

I'm not sure whether to call it the "Lemmings" or the "Martyrs" forum, so I'll let you decide which is best.

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Fri 25th April 2008, 2:18am

[Peter Damian]

Dear Mods And Staff,

We appear to need a new forum for Wikipedia Review members who are rushing to Fall On Their Swords (WP:FOTS) for the diversion of the Wiki-Pan-Et-Circus Crowds.

I'm not sure whether to call it the "Lemmings" or the "Martyrs" forum, so I'll let you decide which is best.

Jon

Look I want to prove a point. There are some basic issues here - such as the right to contest a block when it involves a basic issue like this. A few very negative people have said that there is no justice available on WP, that the whole thing will be rigged from the start &c &c.

Well they may be right. But let's prove that once and for all. I will act decently throughout and argue the case logically, and let's see who prevails. Prove me wrong, Jon.

Mind you, despite I have directly mailed practically everyone on Arbcom, I still have no reply.

[Somey]

Mind you, despite I have directly mailed practically everyone on Arbcom, I still have no reply.

Well c'mon, you already know e-mailing them isn't going to work. You have to dress up like a police officer, steal a squad car, follow them to their secret hideout, and pull them over on the pretense of giving them a ticket for running the stop sign.

Then, instead of giving them an actual ticket, you give them a brightly-colored balloon that says "Please unblock me!" and they usually do, because, you know, they're into the whole balloon thing.

It's all in the procedures manual...

[Peter Damian]

We'll see. I have had a lot of interesting leaks over the past few days. There is obviously a great deal of nervousness about even acknowledging the existence of this appeal.

It is getting more and more embarrassing for them by the minute, given that many admins (and one Arbcom member) regularly read this.

I am just going to keep on until I get a result.

[Moulton]

Look I want to prove a point. There are some basic issues here - such as the right to contest a block when it involves a basic issue like this. A few very negative people have said that there is no justice available on WP, that the whole thing will be rigged from the start &c &c.

Well they may be right. But let's prove that once and for all. I will act decently throughout and argue the case logically, and let's see who prevails.

I had the same concern. But rather than try to prove it, I filed an RfAr asking ArbCom to adjudge whether, in my case, I was afforded Due Process. ArbCom declined to answer my inquiry.

Mind you, despite I have directly mailed practically everyone on Arbcom, I still have no reply.

That was my experience, too. Eventually, as a result of a dialogue here with Mercury, I was unblocked long enough to file an RfAr.

But I still don't know whether or not ArbCom believes I was afforded Due Process.

[Jon Awbrey]

Dear Mods And Staff,

We appear to need a new forum for Wikipedia Review members who are rushing to Fall On Their Swords (WP:FOTS) for the diversion of the Wiki-Pan-Et-Circus Crowds.

I'm not sure whether to call it the "Lemmings" or the "Martyrs" forum, so I'll let you decide which is best.

Jon

Look I want to prove a point. There are some basic issues here — such as the right to contest a block when it involves a basic issue like this. A few very negative people have said that there is no justice available on WP, that the whole thing will be rigged from the start &c &c.

Well they may be right. But let's prove that once and for all. I will act decently throughout and argue the case logically, and let's see who prevails. Prove me wrong, Jon.

Mind you, despite I have directly mailed practically everyone on Arbcom, I still have no reply.

Trying to prove a point is what martyrs do.

What point the mythical lemming is trying to prove I don't quite know.

Oh Look! They have a rule against that — WP:POINT.

But seriously, Demian, er, Damian, I do ∑wut dimly tumble to the fact that this whole bit is some new-φangled kind of Performance Art whose e-sthetic I just haven't come to e-preciate yet — it's just that many of us are wik-&-wirry of being constantly splattered with yer blud-&-guts, not to mention all the watermelons, and so I think it's a decent suggestion to confine it to some well-marked Theatre Of The Meta√Radically Abturd. Jes so innocent by-standers don't get the wrong idea, you unnerstand.

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Fri 25th April 2008, 1:00pm

[Peter Damian]

it's just that many of us are wik-&-wirry of being constantly splattered with yer blud-&-guts, not to mention all the watermelons, and so

Fine then I won't post here any more.

[guy]

Fine then I won't post here any more.

Please don't mind Jon Awbrey. It's just his sense of humour.

[Jon Awbrey]

Fine then I won't post here any more.

Please don't mind Jon Awbrey. It's just his sense of humour.

Yes, try to reguard it as a new-φ∠d style of Performance Art whose e-sthetic you have yet to e-preciate.

Maybe if I brought watermelons …

Jon