You're on the indef list; unless I missed something, please tell me. But for now, I've indef'd this account. I have this page watched, so feel free to berate me for my potential wrongdoings ;-) (email also an option) Xavexgoem (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Peter, sorry about the inconvenience when it looks like you were told in private that you were allowed to edit again. could you elaborate a little on who actually said that? I'm trying to find someone to vouch for this so we can get you unblocked, but I need to know who to email. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter has been in discussion with a number of people including me. The last message I sent him said that I was waiting for feedback from FloNight, I think he got a little excited and jumped the gun. Thatcher 23:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just emailing Jimbo to see what was going on. I still wish that he would comment on it - at the end of the day it was still a Jimbo ban and it would be good to hear it from either him or ArbCom that he's officially unblocked. When Peter was creating new accounts, we heard that they should be left unblocked per ArbCom directive, but nobody officially said anything about it. It's sort of unfair to leave the admins that take action and Peter in limbo - an official word on the matter would be good. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When his latest incarnation User:Americanlinguist was spotted, there was a quite funny thread at AN where admins refused to block him for a few days, until someone that had not read the thread blocked him. The only action taken until then had been WP:TROUTing him [1], see his post at WR lamenting that his strategy failed[2]. Unfortunately, the search function sucks, and I can't locate the AN thread -.-

There is an informative post at WR [3], let's see if Jimbo makes a statement on-wiki. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to an inquiry by Thatcher saying that I neither support nor oppose this. I should not be considered any obstacle in this situation. Apparently there is an agreement which resolves all the outstanding issues. I am hopeful for the future.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the respone - saves me an email! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was quick :) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AN thread is here, retrieved from there. Cenarium (Talk) 00:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, who gets to clean up after Xavexgoem on the ArbCom vote pages (asks an unpleased editor who was his first mentor, since I think caution should always be exercised before the block button is used, and I don't detect that there was any urgency here to block and delete Arb votes) ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned most of them up, so no problem. Bishonen and a few others took care of the rest before I could. I consider it my responsibility. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, X (perhaps my mentorship stuck after all :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But of course :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be caching problems on my end, but I still see a struck vote at least at Cool Hand Luke. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what's the deal here? The fellow linked to a page that stated he was sitebanned per Jimbo Wales. So per WP:BAN I struck through. Totally in line with WP:BAN in that, and then Bishonen reverts me without discussion? Now it's well known that I'm perhaps the most vocal critic of Charles Matthews this site has had in the last year. Tell me what's up with this, because if it's per any sort of policy it's been very poorly handled. I'd like a straight answer. Because if one doesn't come quickly this is going to AN. Durova^Charge! 23:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness; Jimbo responded rather promptly above. Must everything be drama-mongered at AN? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drama has nothing to do with it, Sandy. Policy does. And I'd take this to the same noticeboard as any other undiscussed post restoration by a sitebanned editor, unless a clear and prompt explanation is forthcoming by the editor who reverted me. If she wanted to avoid 'drama' she could have communicated. I'm not hard to find. I know I was within policy. Was she? Durova^Charge! 00:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When unnecessary drama hits, I unwatch. My concern was for X, since I mentored him when he was new and I was disappointed to see a block without consultation. I smell an unnecessary controversy and another rubbernecking incident at the Adminstrators' noticeboards. Adios. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← There was no indication that what I was doing was incorrect - it was mostly a decision I made over at -en-ace (watching the votes come in) and being informed he was on the indef block list. It just appeared that the un-ban was to allow communication of the block, but voting seemed unlikely (may be hearsay; apologies in that event, but a lot of this is hearsay). I have made it known that I consider this my responsibility... or had, at any rate (I've reverted all the actions by now). I agree: unnecessary drama gets an unwatch. Apologies for bringing this about... I just think we're all on different pages here (but merging on the same story, I hope... I blame a general lack of communication. Sorry!) Xavexgoem (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Sandy. Stop throwing the word 'drama' at me. I crossed through a post per policy. Got reverted without discussion. And so far as I can tell, that reversion was totally against policy. I have as much right as anybody else to take that to the admin boards. And I'm attempting to reduce what you term 'drama' by discussing it here first. But as far as I've been able to determine after the fact, this editor received a very limited unblock which by no means permitted election votes. Now if somebody wants to tell me otherwise, fine. It ends there. I want a straight answer, not rhetoric. Durova^Charge! 00:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Could someone post a simple notice of whether or not this editor has been unbanned, and if so why and by whom? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumptively, until his main user pages are noted as unbanned, he is banned. This is a macabre reincarnation of the points I raised against Charles Matthews at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SlrubensteinII: the rest of the community is not bound to defer to the 'in crowd' (however defined) about inexplicable decisions performed without communication. I'm still waiting for an explanation. Durova^Charge! 00:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing inappropriate about the block under the circumstances. Damian and I were discussing the matter and he got enthusiastic and jumped the gun. I am working on a formal statement but like everything else involving this user seems to be, it is complicated. Thatcher 00:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So Thatcher, does he have standing to vote or doesn't he? If he does, I would have preferred the courtesy of restoring the post myself. Durova^Charge! 00:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you only stroke one of the eleven votes that he made[4], I supose that people trying to clean the "premature block" mess must have not noticed that they should have asked you. I'd blame it on enthusiasm and not on disrespect towards you. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that on good faith. Regarding that particular candidate my striking of an oppose vote should have been unambiguously above reproach. Still, it's less a matter of personalities than of policy. If a vote goes up against a candidate and that vote is obviously coming from a sitebanned editor, shouldn't it be the normal for any editor in good standing to remove that vote? And if the situation is somehow ambiguous and has been poorly communicated, doesn't fall it upon those who'd restore that person's standing to (1) specify that standing to edit exists in the first place, and (2) communicate with the editors who acted per policy in good faith rather than reverting without explanation? The last thing I sought was drama; I acted in full belief that the edit was uncontroversial. And I am not pleased that surrounding uncommunicated circumstances were such that a fellow editor of SandyGeorgia's experience could mistake that action for 'drama'. Whoever's handling this dearly needs to get their house in order. Preferably before unblocking. Durova^Charge! 01:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I don't care what you do with his votes. Who has more at stake in the Arbcom elections than a banned user seeking to be unbanned? Yet at the time he voted he was technically still banned, and see further the conditions I have imposed on remaining unblocked. I'm not a process wonk, do what you think the situation requires. Thatcher 02:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, recommending you work it out with the editor who reverted me without discussion. I have no intention of edit warring (certainly not over another oppose to a candidate I wholeheartedly oppose already). If I'd had any feasible way to determine that the vote might have been valid, I'd have held off. And if I'd been contacted I could have been persuaded to restore the vote myself. What you have now is called a 'situation'. And that siutuation was not of my making. I just read what was before me and acted within policy. And now I wonder what in heck was happening behind closed doors. Durova^Charge! 02:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a letter for you:

Sehr geehrter Herr!
Sie sind, wie Sie wissen, in die herrschaftlichen Dienste aufgenommen. Ihr nächster Vorgesetzter ist der Gemeindevorsteher des Dorfes, der Ihnen auch alles Nähere über Ihre Arbeit und die Lohnbedingungen mitteilen wird und dem Sie auch Rechenschaft schuldig sein werden. Trotzdem werde aber auch ich Sie nicht aus den Augen verlieren. Barnabas, der Überbringer dieses Briefes, wird von Zeit zu Zeit bei Ihnen nachfragen, um Ihre Wünsche zu erfahren und mir mitzuteilen. Sie werden mich immer bereit finden, Ihnen soweit es möglich ist, gefällig zu sein. Es liegt mir daran zufriedene Arbeiter zu haben.

— ~~~~ Der Vorstand der X. Kanzlei

-- Barnabas 00:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obscene trolling in German! --NE2 01:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This message is to the community and to Peter Damian to explain the unblock, the conditions attached, and why these conditions are different from the ones Damian expects.

Peter Damian and I have been discussing a possible unblock, with most emails cc'd to FT2, Jimbo and FloNight. I sent him a message 24 hours ago that said, in part, "Therefore I am strongly considering unblocking you on the "give him enough rope to hang himself" principle and see which way things turn out. I want to wait a bit longer to see if Jimbo has any reply to the email I sent last night...In the event I decide to unblock you, which account would you prefer to use going forward?" I sent a message 12 hours ago stating. " I was unable to find a developer who would reset the password to "Peter Damian". They tell me it was only rarely done in the past and is not done any more, that's what the email address is for. Sorry. FloNight has asked for an update so I have forwarded some correspondence and await her feedback." Damian jumped the gun and created this account and began editing before he was formally unblocked. The block by Xavexgoem was appropriate under the circumstances, but the result of an unfortunate miscommunication.

My intent in unblocking, and the conditions I intended to set, were expressed in an email to Damian yesterday,

I was going to advise Damian to avoid making posts on or off-wiki that had the effect or intent of harassing FT2 or any editor, and that if he disagreed with article content, to find ways of dealing with the content without making it personal against the editor. It is my feeling that if the oversight issue was what drove Damian to act out, here and on Wikipedia Review, that he might be able to drop it now that it is out in the open and edit without incident. If he returned to harassing FT2 in any way, he would be re-banned and it would be final since the oversight matter would not be clouding the block.

In the meantime, two editors have emailed me strongly advising me against unblocking Damian.

Furthermore, FT2 strongly objects to unblocking under those conditions. He wishes to lay out for the community a narrative and timeline (with diffs and emails) justifying the original block. He proposes that Damian be allowed to contribute to that discussion but to nothing else, at least at first. He has also suggested a series of additional conditions if Damian were to be generally unblocked. I do not agree with these conditions. However, I recognize that Damian was responsible for and/or participated in conduct that was deeply hurtful to FT2 and that as the aggrieved party he naturally seeks closure on terms that he is willing to accept. FT2 has also pointed out, again as a party, not as an Arbitrator, that Peter Damian's block says Please do not unblock without approval from me and/or ArbCom and that since Jimbo here has expressed no opinion either way, the matter must be decided by Arbcom.

I am placed in the most difficult position of my administrative career. I have sympathy for FT2 and I agree with on some points although I disagree on others. I also believe that Peter Damian was wronged in some measure by having edits he wished to link to oversighted just when he was being asked to produce them, and further harmed by the failure of those who knew about the oversight issue to deal with it sooner and more transparently. On the other hand, Damian forced my hand by starting this account before he was unblocked. I also can not ignore the wisdom of my (unnamed) email correspondents who argued against unblocking. It is possible that my own administrative judgement is seriously flawed in this instance. At this moment I can either

1. Unblock on my original conditions, causing great hurt and possible injustice to FT2, or
2. Unblock on FT2's conditions, with which I do not agree, or
3. Reblock and punt to Arbcom or
4. Leave unblocked and punt to Arbcom.

So I am punting to Arbcom. Peter Damian is unblocked subject to the following conditions:

1. He may edit within his own user space.
2. He may edit WP:RFAR and any associated pages (including arbitrators' talk pages, if appropriate) for the specific and limited purpose of appealing his ban and requesting an unconditional (or less conditional) unblock.
3. He may contribute to and offer comments on FT2's discussion of "the situation" (Damian's edits to the Arbcom 2007 election, subsequent block, oversight, etc) at whatever page FT2 designates.
4. He may not edit other pages without permission of Arbcom.
5. Any harassment or wikihounding of FT2 shall be grounds for reimposition of the indefinite ban.
6. Any admin may re-impose Jimbo's block for violation of these conditions.
7. These conditions will remain in force until vacated by Arbcom.

I apologize to all but especially to Peter Damian for my inability to deal with the matter in a manner I consider satisfactory. Thatcher 02:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, I respect the difficulty of your position. Please understand mine. A day ago, serious allegations came up at AN regarding the John Vandenberg candidacy. Now I don't really care which person winds up with the seventh place spot; I've voted in favor of just about everyone who has a shot at it. But I do care very much about the integrity of our ArbCom election process. Whatever there is to come out regarding Peter Damian's allegations regarding FT2, I'd like to get to the bottom of that as much as anybody. And if a limited unblock is the way to do it, so much the better. WR was right about Mantanmoreland. Maybe they'll be right about this too. Let's get all the evidence and see. If only there had been a way to see what was going on--but I don't have ESP. Best regards. Durova^Charge! 02:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with the above, with one exception. Not so much "justifying the original block" (I am not vindictive, if Damian acts well, it's history) but more, "Explaining the original situation and seeking questions from the community if there are still any concerns".

I advocated at arbcom election for highest standards, openness, and integrity. If there are any concerns (ie, requests for evidence and explanation, not just presumptions and rhetoric) then I would wish to address those, and as I said last week, I'll be doing so. In full. As best I'm able, without holding back or hesitation. I have posted a summary of some points already, and will dig up the diffs and other evidence to post a fuller version for the community. I needed help to do this, namely Damian's permission to cite evidence from emails and his old account, to allow a complete and evidenced explanation to be possible, and he has given it. In return I have likewise given him my permission to cite from any emails I have sent him, if he wishes (and does so in context).

More in a few days. And Thatcher, no idea it was this big a headache. You didn't deserve it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't pretend this was not a straw but it certainly wasn't the only straw. And you certainly are entitled to offer your narration and timeline of events, both to Damian and to the community. I hope it works out. For now I reiterate my apology to Damian that I was not able to do a better job of working things out for you. Good luck. Thatcher 04:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does "So I am punting to Arbcom." mean? Why should PD be prevented from working on articles? This is just insane. How about just conditions #5 and #7. --Duk 04:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. a question for FT2; can Peter please work on articles? --Duk 05:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Punting to Arbcom is a reference to American football. It means Arbcom is asked to decide whether the unblock stands and what conditions, if any, to attach to it. Thatcher 07:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Way ahead of you there, Duk. I had a proposal drafted minutes after posting the above. But I thought it best to run it by others first as I'm a party in any dispute here, and its best Peter knows anything proposed is passed by someone else who's uninvolved. So I did that and sent it off about 1 hr 5 mins ago. No response as yet, hopefully soon. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please bring stuff 'on wiki', FT.... maybe you're coming round to the perspective that it really really helps resolve things quicker, and better and is just generally the right thing to do... hope so. What have you proposed? (and ideally to whom - this really should be discussed as openly as possible, I reckon...) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A candid note for Privatemusings: The situation as it stands is fine. Don't force through transparency for transparency's sake where several other factors are in play. (You did precisely that in the Steve Crossin matter, and it enabled precisely zero improvement as a result.) AGK 18:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that this may have been the straw which broke Thatcher's back, and he has stepped away from the wiki for a while - hopefully for a good break :-) - I can't really tell what the devil's going on, but additionally for what it's worth, I am glad that PD has been unblocked, and I hope he can expediently be encouraged to head back to the edit windows unencumbered to help wikipedia along :-) best, Privatemusings (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Everyking on wikipedia review; obviously Damian is a good content contributor when he wants to be, that's why I have been trying to get him unblocked to give him one last chance to show that he can edit without harassing other users. Sorry I left it out of my statement above. But that alone does not justify ignoring everything else that has happened. Thatcher 03:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but your unblock conditions do not allow you to vote this year, and those votes have been indented for the time being.--Tznkai (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am at a loss to understand any of the discussion above. I am particularly irritated by the accusations of 'harassment'. This is a serious charge as yet unproven. Harassment is a different matter from dissent and disagreement and criticism. Please see the page linked to below which I had prepared in the case of a hearing by the Arbitration committee (though all 'hearings' hitherto have been secret). We have to distinguish between good-faith criticism aimed at improving the content of articles on the project, and (particularly) aimed at improving the standards of governance on the project (which would include the right to a public hearing when charges like 'harassment' are so freely bandied about).

Apart from two instances of gross rudeness in early December 2007, for which I apologised then, and for which I apologise to FT2 again, my criticism of FT2's administrative actions and, increasingly, of the secretive atmosphere surrounding this whole affair, have been principled and in good faith.

I have a complete statement here. I am happy to remain silent but I would like these accusations of harassment to STOP please unless they can be vindicated. Thank you. Peter Damian II (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit] I have just noticed Thatcher's statement on this. He alone has behaved honourably in this affair (if occasionally hastily - he too has accused me of 'harassment'), and it is a shame this seems to have precipitated his resignation. With every kind wish to everyone here. Peter Damian II (talk) 07:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit] The German passage above from 'Barnabas' is a quotation from the novel 'The Castle' by Franz Kafka. I don't know who the poster is, but he clearly appreciates the irony of the situation. Barnabas (from memory) was one of The Land Surveyor's assistants. Peter Damian II (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I liked the Kafka reference in The Land Surveyor's account name and user page. Thatcher 11:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Peter, on the subject of "harassment", you have done a number of things since December of last year that you need to undertake not to do again in order to regain/retain your editing privileges. (For example, your handling of the deletion nomination of the NLP articles was a big step in the right direction because it focused on content, not personalities.) If "harassment" is too strong a word perhaps you can suggest another term. It was my intention to place minimal conditions on your unblock and see if you could work it out for yourself, as I noted above, predicated on the notion that you would be less likely to say and do inappropriate things now that the oversight issue was out of the way. Thatcher 12:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes well Thatcher if you haven't forgotten when I nominated that crappy article for deletion I was blocked. Please stop that awful person below posting to my talk page with his vile accusations. Thanks. Peter Damian II (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry to be ruining the emphasis of your statement by following it with this anticlimax, Peter, but somebody's bound to post here pretty soon in any case.) Hi, Durova. I note that you have expressed resentment six times on this page over my restoration of PDII's vote opposing Charles Matthews, which you had removed. You call for me to cite policies "clearly and promptly" to explain my action and (if I read you correctly) to clear up the conspiracy "behind closed doors" which you take me to represent [5] OK, I think you know what timezone I'm in, so I make no apologies for not being very prompt. Perhaps it would have been better if I hadn't put PDII's vote back; but I was too concerned—no, let me be quite frank, I was too angry—to be entirely politic. Angry not so much at your removal of PD's vote, but at the scornful note you posted along with it, right there in the vote list: "What you should have disclosed, Peter, is that you're sitebanned. Whether you and I agree or not, you have no standing to post here. Please stop socking and begone." You're fond of telling people to assume good faith; did you have none to spare, yourself, for an editor in a vulnerable position ? "Socking?" "Begone"? Did you have any reason to suppose that the indefbanned PD would have suddenly attempted to vote in the ArbCom election (using the account he's known under, with a "II" added because he'd munged the original password—such abusive sockery!) if nothing in his situation had changed? The situation was confused, and it ended up with PD's vote removed; but it called in any case for regret, not rudeness. I don't accept your idea that discussion should have started with me; it should have started with a polite question or explanation from you to PDII. The most important time to remember WP:CIVIL is when you're talking to someone in a weaker position. Incidentally, I don't accept your notion that "the fellow" is an appropriate way of referring to such a person [6]—on his own talkpage, yet. To summarize, "a straight answer, not rhetoric": I was pissed off. I didn't trust myself to post at length, and therefore posted briefly. I wasn't in the mood for blandishments, and therefore didn't try to "persuade" you to anything.[7] P.S. Wait, the conspiracy. Where did I get my behind-closed-doors information, which made me restore PD's vote? I read it on WR. Bishonen | talk 08:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The tone of that post is such that I respectfully request you seek another party in future rather than reverting my posts yourself, if you do not wish to discuss the edits with me. Your content work earns my highest respect (before reading the above I praised a featured article of yours today) and we cross paths seldom enough. When Wikipedia Review dictates WP policies I will certainly begin reading it regularly. For the present, I act in accordance with WP:BAN, and my action was reinstated. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 20:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you talk in that funny way? Please get off my talk page Peter Damian II (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poking editors with proverbial sticks is not a good idea - ever.--Tznkai (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a proper ArbCom case or clarification about wheter Damian should be unblocked and under what terms? This kind of limbo will lead to more mistakes and drama. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you didn't click the signature. I am sorry to see that the quotation is no longer from the right piece – Before the Law seems a bit more appropriate now. I really hope you and FT2 can both resist the urge to move for a complete solution, for a verdict that says which of you is "right". I suspect a fair and objective verdict would say: Either of you made mistakes in good faith, either of you acted in what seemed to be the right way based on your not entirely unreasonable view of the situation, and either were unwise not to allow for your own and your opponents' bias and constraints.

I believe you have both learned something. This seems to be the kind of conflict that is best resolved by burying and ceasing to think about it. By the two opponents grudgingly shaking hands (just because everybody expects them to, of course), and quietly resolving to ignore each other from now on. That's often not possible for external reasons. But here all the real grievances seem to be things that lie in the past. There is no current conflict unless one of you chooses to look backwards. The two of you are in a prisoner's dilemma with a past history of not cooperating. But you can both win by reluctantly cooperating now. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Past unblocks, where I haven't intervened, have on each occasion been followed by some form of resumption (even when assured not and with no provocation by any user), hence a degree of caution and the request for more than just "nice words", on this occasion. If that means going slow, or step at a time, so be it. Few people would wish to find themselves smeared to friends and "real life" acquaintances with accusations and insinuations of criminal conduct, or to their co-editors, and there has been fair restraint given this.

I don't do vindictiveness or the like. I've also avoided conflict with him on-wiki, and not escalated when faced by any of his actions. Non-resumption and Damian himself ceasing this entirely (whether overt, subtle, "wikihounding", or hinted at), is all I'd be looking for. Unconditional and sincere. (And maybe avoiding a handful of "toxic" topics he had never edited historically, to prevent friction and recurrence.) To date it's been neither. So if this were to become genuinely closed, it would immediately be old history and dropped.

This isn't the first occasion we've tried to sort things out. Past occasions have been hampered by concerns over his privacy, which have been added to by the fact he's assumed I am in the loop on some things where in fact I asked not to be (so he'd have a neutral hearing), and by considerable confusion with those he has been liaising with. A lot of the public debate has been off-site, and has been tainted by misinformation and enabling (some people have encouraged and amplified his wild beliefs, rather than encouraging dialog and a balanced perspective), which hasn't helped. Despite this I had offered, and Damian accepted, mediation a few months back. So this is not the first time we've hoped to see it drawn to a close. It's a classic case of best going well by going slow. I hope that on-wiki discussion will help, and I will move onto this within a very few days.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please go away you are not welcome here. Peter Damian II (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gather the developers are unwilling to reset the password on Peter Damian. I can help with that to some extent, let me explain what is involved and you can decide whether you're interested:

• I can rename User:Peter Damian to something of your choice, say User:Peter Damian (old) or similar.
• I can then rename this account, User:Peter Damian II to User:Peter Damian in its place.

That will allow you to edit as Peter Damian, but the contributions you made under that name would be reallocated to the name you chose in its place. Let me know if that appeals to you and I will do the necessary renames. WJBscribe (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Will that would be a good idea. Peter Damian II (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose for Peter Damian's limited return is FT2's welcome to join the open scrutiny of FT2's conduct. This is a worthwhile goal and it could have been achieved without last night's trouble by a simple means.

The old WP:CSN board routinely used a transclusion template so that blocked users could participate in their own sanctions discussion on an equal footing. An adapted form of that template would have enabled Peter to present his reasoning and evidence regarding FT2 without risking disruption to other site functions.

Regardless of the merits of either FT2's or Peter's position in their dispute, the general idea of open scrutiny is a good one and deserves encouragement, balanced with effective management. So suggesting that future these discussions take place by template rather than by unblock. Durova^Charge! 20:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please go away you are not welcome here either. Peter Damian II (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the ???. I tried to edit this page and I get this message that I can't. What is this ridiculous charade for? Peter Damian II (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Peter Damian II". The reason given for Peter Damian II's block is: "Block evasion"." Peter Damian II (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is giving you a five or six digit number that is needed to clear the autoblock set by the MediaWiki system. We need that to unblock the underlying IP. MBisanz ^talk 20:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry do I have to do something here? Peter Damian II (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you need to give me the five or six digit code (or your IP address) to do the unblock of the system block. MBisanz ^talk 20:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm - Were your unblock terms modified to allow article editing recently?--Tznkai (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK 86.146.88.46 Peter Damian II (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done [8] MBisanz ^talk 20:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Now can someone please tell the FT2 person to go away and not to come back again. And the other 'Durova' one. Many thanks. Peter Damian II (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have your attention, your current unblock terms, to my knowledge do not allow you to edit in mainspace. Could you kindly point out where this has been changed, or desist?--Tznkai (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]