Current unblock request, moral challenge to Arbcom Options

[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.

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

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.

[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

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

[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.

[Peter Damian]

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.

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.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: