Copied from Jimbo Wales' talk page. as requested. Begoon ^talk 20:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am editor Peter Damian. I started contributing to Wikipedia in 2003, and started (or was the major contributor to) many articles in Wikipedia, including logic and set theory, architecture, London places, and in particular medieval logic and philosophy, on which I am a published author, [39]. I was banned in August 2009 after accusing an administrator and ex-arbitrator of sockpuppeting.

After the ban I edited from other accounts, creating a number of articles and improving many others. This upset many Wikipedians – no one has ever complained to my knowledge about the quality of the content, but I was breaking the rules. So I stopped, and haven't touched Wikipedia in any significant way for nearly 3 years. (I occasionally edit Jimmy's page as an IP). I am a frequent contributor to Wikipediocracy and I wrote some of the exposés that found their way into the mainstream media.

I appeal to the community to revoke the ban of 2009. Most of the signatories of the ban are now either banned themselves, or have left, or were sockpuppet accounts created specifically to support the ban, but I welcome comments from other members of the community. user:Peter Damian

• End ban - I'll get this started. Does anybody remember what this ban was originally about? Or what great end has been served by alienating a subject expert from participation in writing the encyclopedia? "Peter" is a very reasonable voice at Wikipediocracy; he's capable of being a productive Wikipedian. There are plenty of critics of WMF and the dysfunctionality of some aspects of Wikipedia who are currently working to build the encyclopedia in a productive way — myself included. There has been enough water under the bridge. Carrite (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - HERE is the last stable version of Peter's courtesy-blanked User page. Carrite (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite [| This would be one place to look ], [|| more history ], He even made it to [| Arbcom ]. Since he has a history of socking (per Arbcom) I'd want to see a CU done to see that he hadn't socked prior to this writing this note. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 20:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia sure is a funny place. In the section above I see a topic ban appeal, placed around 20 seconds after it was permissible to do so, after the countdown template for appeal on his user page ticked to zero (no, really...), by a user whose talk page archives and contributions shriek conflict from day one, and don't improve much over time. Yeah, that's you, Kosh. And now you'd like a checkuser on a guy appealing a 5 year old ban? This truly is the twilight zone. Can you do something about that horrendous signature, by the way? Thanks. Begoon ^talk 20:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, my unban request was a day later (1 year and 1 day later ), yes, I had a countdown on my page, that's true. If I were banned from Wikipedia and wanted to get unbanned, I would totally expect a CU would be run on me to make sure I hadn't socked during my ban, as that would look pretty bad on my part, so it's not too far fetched to request that. However, if the consensus in this discussion is that a CU isn't necessary, I'll strike that request myself. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 21:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral (edit conflict) As a rule, I'm generally in favor of the Wikipedia:Standard offer, and as far as I can tell, the criteria are met here. But I do see an issue with the comment regarding the signatories of the ban. A surprisingly large number are blocked, a fair characterization on that account. A couple have left or renamed a bit of a stretch, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt on that one. There is only a single obvious sock in the version of the discussion linked from his block log, which to me makes the claim regarding the involvement of sockpuppets in the ban discussion seem rather dubious considering how lopsided the discussion was. More generally, focusing attention on who !voted for the ban, when its clear the ban was properly enacted with a strong consensus of !voting editors, makes me worry there may be a lingering battlefield mentality. Maybe I'm reading too much into that one sentence, lets hope so. Monty₈₄₅ 20:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Wikipedia:Standard offer. I think KoshVorlon's suggestion of verification a reasonable one. Gamaliel (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• End ban I believe Peter Damian has much to offer. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• End ban per Wikipedia:Standard offer. Begoon ^talk 21:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Carrite and not with Monty. I see that final sentence as saying basically "Nobody's left who asked for the ban", i.e. "I won't be able to resume old conflicts" (it's hard to fight with an inactive user!) and "there's no point in notifying them, so the whole discussion will depend on people who are uninvolved". I would be opposed to an unban request from someone who attempted to seek real-life harm against another user (for example, Ecoleetage), or from someone who has a history of advanced vandalism (for example, Robdurbar), but when you're banned after a series of personal conflicts, we should acquiesce to what's basically a request to start over. Moreover, you've demonstrated that you're interested in contributing encyclopedic content: it's radically different from when we get an unban request from someone who wasn't particularly active in starting and/or improving articles, because we can expect that you'll help us in writing the encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lifting ban. Admittedly, I don't see item 2 of the Standard offer met, but the circumstances involved here have been discussed at length, um, elsewhere, shall we say, and from what I can tell of the discussion there, if it is accurate, this editor's personal behavior may not be worse than some of the others involved in that matter, and may have, in a sense, been more in keeping with current policies and guidelines regarding content anyway. I advise that the content related to the ban is now under discretionary sanctions, and that it might be very much a bad idea to unilaterally play hero on that content right now, but I think that there are enough other editors who are aware of the occasional POV pushing on that topic to maybe keep the content up to level. One could always, however, go to the FTN, where I think Peter might even fairly regularly see some people he knows already. ;) John Carter (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I think we should lift Peter's ban and welcome him back. He obviously cares about the project, and has done a lot of good even while banned (for instance, by doing a lot of heavy lifting in the Wifione case). Frankly, I think Peter's concerns about FT2 (which led to his ban) have proven to be borne out. I think Peter has a lot to offer and I can't think of any good reason why he should remain banned at this point. MastCell ^Talk 21:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Sure Blocks are cheap. Arkon (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little part of me dies everytime someone repeats that nostrum. Blocks aren't cheap. MastCell ^Talk 21:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hahaha, it hurt me too. Can't believe there are any little parts of you left. Arkon (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Touché. MastCell ^Talk 22:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Arkon, you have made light of a holy thing. Please be more respectful in your remarks. The Traveling Boris (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Three years is a long time to be dormant. It sounds like time has been served. My comment is that when an editor returns like this, they have dozens of eyes on them. Should he fall into battleground behavior, it's an uncontroversial reblock so the potential benefits outweight the potential costs, I think. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lifting the ban.--MONGO 21:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: lifting of this ban. Time served, agreed. Please give this editor a new chance. Fylbecatulous talk 21:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Revoke ban. The origin of the ban was a conflict between PD and... FT2 (I wrote "a then arbitrator" at first, but I see MastCell has already named him, so what the hell), who was forced to leave the committee in disgrace in early 2009. There was a lot of bad blood between them. In my opinion Peter was far less at fault than FT2, but he (Peter) is a hot-blooded fellow who lost his temper repeatedly after suffering much provocation and dishonest dealing. If anybody doubts that version of events, I can give details and diffs, but after all this time it's perhaps not necessary to revive the old scandal. Peter should have been unbanned long ago. Bishonen | talk 21:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• Support: lifting of this ban, pr all of the above. This is *way* overdue. (PS, I´m not an admin, but I hope I can have may say, still?) Huldra (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant support but with absolutely zero tolerance for any misbehavior whatsoever. As said above, blocks aren't cheap, it frequently takes a lot of energy to get someone re-blocked once a block is lifted. I don't want that in this case. BMK (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lifting the ban. I was inactive for a long time and sat out all of this drama. Looking back at some of the relevant discussions with the benefit of hindsight makes this look far overdue. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per MastCell and Bishonen. Andreas JN466 22:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Lift ban per WP:OFFER; a lot of water has flowed under that bridge. Welcome back. Miniapolis 22:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lifting - and from looking into the background to this, I have to suggest that the original ban was questionable to say the least. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lifting the ban. I'd be delighted to welcome Peter back. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely not. Honestly, the very concept of Peter Damian returning makes me feel ill. Just to make sure we're talking about the same user: this is the person who claims to be writing a book length- and format "expose" on Wikipedia that discusses specific editors (COI declaration: I'm one of them) by real-world name? That Peter Damian? Ironholds (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If he can hold himself to your standards of behaviour, I'll join you in opposition. Other than that, shut up, really. You're discredited everywhere that matters. Everyone knows, you know. Begoon ^talk 22:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That I was an asshole as a teenager? Absolutely. But, as you've just so nicely demonstrated, the way it's understood is an inaccurate one. Ironholds (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How old were you when you made the comments about setting an editor alight with oil? Genuine question. Begoon ^talk 23:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The comments I have seen from PD regarding Wikipedia have been constructive and insightful. As noted by others a lot of water has been passed under the bridge since then. He should be allowed to contribute here. The Traveling Boris (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lifting. Long overdue. Free speech, Oliver. That he is writing a critique of Scientology this cult is not grounds for banning him. It's grounds for applause. Get it straight. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  "But free speech!" == "Literally the nicest thing I can say about this is that it's not actually against the law". Yes, I'm free to refute anything he or anyone else says - if I am totally ignorant of the streisand effect. Yes, I'm free to sue him - if I'm totally ignorant of the streisand effect, have far more disposable income than I actually have, don't plan to get anything done for at least six months, and enjoy what WO does when one pokes the bear. That he is writing a critique of Wikipedia is not grounds for banning him; that he is so incredibly apathetic to the idea of what happens to actual, living people is. Tell you what; when you've had a stream of death threats from people, mounds upon mounds of hideous, defamatory commentary, and basically had to live under a rock for a year, then you can come to me and tell me that you have the slightest idea what is actually practical in that situation, and how you're incredibly comfortable letting a member of the same weird clique as the issuers of said defamatory commentary and death threats hang out in your home space. Until then, I'd suggest you put just the slightest amount of energy into empathy and understanding that people may have legitimate safety concerns with rewarding people who egg on and support an environment that contains those kinds of people. Ironholds (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before he posted his reply I redacted the part of my original comment that said "sue him if he lies" for the reasons Oliver lays out above. It was a stupid, thoughtless comment. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it wasn't a "stream of death threats" but a death threat, from someone Oliver won't name but who is apparently "associated with" Peter ... or, at least, someone claiming to be someone associated with Peter. I presume that's meant to mean someone from Wikipediocracy. I've asked Oliver to name the sender so the moderators can ban them from Wikipediocracy, but he won't. Oliver didn't report this to the police. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or to put it another way: you have very deliberately selectively quoted and interpreted what I actually said, in order to reduce the impact of it as much as possible. Do you genuinely wonder why I didn't trust you enough to handle the situation reasonably to give you the details? Or is this just some sick game to you? Ironholds (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for having misrepresented you. If you'll show me where I've done that, I will definitely correct the record. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify why you find PD using your 'real-world name' problematic when it features prominently on your user page? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He'll probably clarify that at the same time that he justifies suggesting use of a pen to punch a... Oh never mind, it's pointless. Begoon ^talk 22:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to clarify what the difference is between my real-world name being associated with my userpage, and my real-world name being the title of a chapter of a book explicitly designed to crap all over whatever the chapter covers? Really? Ironholds (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support. This should be an easy decision. I look forward to his upcoming contributions. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to not being familiar with the specifics of what @Ironholds: is noting, and mean no offense in my support of the proposal. More information? A statement from PD?JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC) I've read enough now to be continue with my strong support. No offense to those who oppose. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On his talk page, Oliver explains that it was someone else that sent him a death threat. I've asked for clarification. Presently, it seems like a rather extreme attempt to keep someone out who has had the temerity to criticise him. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I had a problem with being criticised I wouldn't work for the Foundation. Ironholds (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for a mixture of reasons I can and can't talk about. I really don't see much value to many of the exposés published on WO and he hasn't shown that he has the ability to stay civil when he disagrees with others. The book that he likes to parade around is worrying; why should we let someone back into the community who is planning on breaking our mores is a very public way? --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 22:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Fuck no. This is a person obsessed with Wikipedia, obsessed with outing Wikipedians, and who has been actually banned by the UK WMF chapter from attending events, and who openly admits ban evasion. Why would this be a good idea? Guy (Help!) 23:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Fuck yeah. But I can't, because I already voted. So indent'n'all. You're often right Guy, and I've often agreed with you. You're wrong today. Begoon ^talk 23:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The UK WMF retracted that ban and apologized. I also find it hilarious that anyone here who spends as many hours editing Wikipedia as some of the editors here would call Mr. Damian's interest in WP "obsessive." Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Cla68 (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Elsewhere, Peter has posted this

  I would be very grateful if someone could point out that the ban was revoked, and apology was made, and the notice on the mailing list taken down by the WMF. ...
  "All, there's been a bit more discussion on Peter Damian in a thread above. I really want to make this clear, however, to everyone, so I'm starting a new section: Peter Damian is not banned from any Wikimedia UK events. We were, in late 2011, worried about his attending an event at the British Library, and we reacted to that by banning him from attending it. This evolved into a 'general ban from events'. However, it was pointed out to us that this ban was perhaps an overreaction, and indeed after having met with Peter in person over a cup of tea, we are quite happy that he is not a 'threat to security'. As a result, we rethought the ban - it was, shall we say, a decision made in haste. We retracted it, and issued an apology for the phrasing. I'm happy to repeat that: Peter is not a threat to our member's security." Quoting Richard Symonds (WMUK)

He says you know this, Guy. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He'd be wrong about that. I know his real-world identity, I know the reports of outing and the reasons why people I know and respect refused to go to any meeting where he was present, but I have never been to a WMFUK meeting or met, to the best of my knowledge, any of those involved, in person. Cla68 also misses the point about obsessive interest. I'm not banned. If I was, I like to think I'd leave the project alone completely for at least a year before even thinking of appealing. As I understand it, PD was banned for cause and still continued to turn up at meetings and such. That's not healthy. However, I am prepared to extend the benefit of the doubt IFF PD will give an unequivocal and binding undertaking to abide by the "friendly space" policy, and if the past accusations of sockpuppetry can be shown to be false. My biggest concern is the outing, whether or not it comes under the guise of "citizen journalism" (a label that is open to egregious abuse since it exists outside of the framework of editorial oversight and press regulation). I do welcome Cla68's new tolerance of offsite outing, and I trust that he will now be petitioning ArbCom to remove the ban on Philip Sandifer. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pot/kettle again Guy. Have you ever dropped my real name in a public, online conversation off-wiki? Of course, I already know the answer. Cla68 (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Request more evidence: I would like to see the case where Mr. Damian was banned, and a list of accusers who Mr. Damian said have been banned, left, and were sock puppets, his defense then, and his defense now as to why the original decision was in error. They should all be notified of the request by Mr. Damian to lift the ban and allowed to express their side of the story--whatever that was. We need to hear from the accusers for this to be a fair plea IMHO. (I put same on Jimbo's page). David Tornheim (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I am a bit troubled with the rush to judgment without following the reasonable procedures I requested above. What if the person making the plea is not being completely honest about what happened? After all, Mr. Damian openly admitted to defying the rules. David Tornheim (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What "rush to judgment"? Who's making a judgement, anywhere, yet? You do talk some crap, Tornheim. I believe that's been noted elsewhere. Begoon ^talk 23:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please strike the ad hominem and uncivil behavior. There is clearly rush to judgment that he is innocent without looking at the evidence. Look at the time frame between the request and all the votes. Where is the evidence? Where are the voices of those who asked that he be banned? David Tornheim (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, actually, David, if you were to read the comments of others here, you would see that this is something that many other editors already know something about. It would be extremely irrational for you to continue to assert that editors like Bishonen, who was very active and highly regarded at the time too, have not looked at the evidence, or, for that matter, known the evidence for some time. What you seem to be requesting is that other editors go out of their way to make it easier for you to not have to look for the evidence, which is another matter entirely. I can also say that many of the other people who have expressed opinions have probably already seen the evidence I have seen elsewhere, and are acting on having reviewed that evidence. While I can understand how it would clearly be a rush to judgment for you to make any sort of decision, this issue is, in a sense, almost the equivalent of the JFK assassination was in the US in the 1970s and 1980s. Virtually everyone who was there at the time remembers fairly clearly what happened, and, if you read the comments of others, like I said, you will see that many have in fact been aware of the evidence before expressing opinions. John Carter (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That may all be true. But I doubt you would be happy if the Warren Commission's report was this and only this: "There was one shooter. We're sure of it. Case closed. We have no documents to share. Please trust us. We know what we are talking about and the evidence we looked at. You can go write your own book and investigate the evidence yourself if you think we are wrong. Have fun." I will note that I see only one voice that part of the original decision: Ironholds. Are the rest the users truly gone, or is this something that was just made up? We will soon find out.David Tornheim (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David, in all honesty, the only person who seems to be unaware of the situation who has been involved to date is you, and the only person who seems to be arguing against "trusting" those who do know the situation is, again, you. And, yes, having looked at some of the names you pinged below, I see several who have been banned for years who are clearly gone, and others who retired, etc. etc. etc. If I might suggest something, rather than continuing to post here, maybe you look at the history of the incidents involved? John Carter (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me the person seeking relief should provide the evidence and do the notification as is required in law. Here apparently it is the judge who has to do the research. Bizarre. It seems to me you are suggesting that WP:INVOLVED parties are preferred over neutral 3rd parties like myself: I have no idea who this guy is or why he was banned. In law, judges and jury are supposed to be neutral and have no COI, not even to do independent research, and are only look at the material presented to them. Here it is more like anything goes and any kind of sophistry is permissible, and in this case it seems only those who have made up their mind in advance are welcomed and someone like me is ridiculed for asking reasonable questions. And you wonder why new editors don't trust the Wiki-court system? David Tornheim (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support lifting ban. I'm sure that folks will keep him on a short leash with regard to incivility, and we really could use some expertise on medieval philosophy articles. I hope that he can keep his temper in check and focus on improving Wikipedia rather than on settling scores and griping about the place's deficiencies. Deor (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, I would question whether this is a good idea. Here are some of my thoughts on the matter:

1. It's my experience that Damien either hates the Wikipedia and everything it stands for, or at the very least hates it in his present form (he might be in favor of it it was run as a for-profit business with a small paid staff of editors, like Britannica, or something (not sure what exactly he would like to see, or if he himself knows).)
2. Given that, it's not clear to me why he would want to be here, except to either abet demoralization of the body of editors on some deep level, to gather material for his business (which is, in part, writing books and articles denigrating the Wikipedia), to valorize his personal hobbyhorses, or some other nefarious purpose.
3. And so because of the above points, a number of editors find interacting with this person painful and unpleasant, and I'm one of them. There are editors here who love the Wikipedia and want to build it up, and dealing with people who hate it want to tear it down as colleagues is asking an awful lot. Do we want to ask that of our volunteers.

I do agree that we ought to run ourselves more like a business. There are some people that you simply can't have on your staff, for whatever reason, and one thing that successful and functional businesses do is recognize when you have this and act decisively. I am confident of one thing for sure: no one should be under the illusion that this sort of person would appreciate the gesture, or can, really. They just see it as a sign of weakness and so another reason to despise us. Herostratus (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You raise some good points, and, to an extent, I think I even implicitly agreed with one of them. That being that he hasn't specifically said what he would do. Having said that, I think it rather obvious that his interests might well be in the field of philosophy, an area we are I think particularly bad at, and issues related to philosophy, including various forms of pseudoscience and dubious beliefs. Having myself indicated I would like to see an indication of what it is he would edit here, I am going to assume that it might be the area of philosophy where we need a lot of help. However, as others have said, I think every here knows, including Peter, that he will be likely on a short leash for some time, and can expect to be sanctioned again should conduct require it. And, honestly, one of the best ways to get critics to maybe soften their criticism is by letting them know just how difficult what is being done is. If we want to make "the book", when it gets published, more sympathetic, one of the best ways would be to make it easier for its author to realize how sometimes difficult and taxing trying to keep this thing together and in decent shape can be again. Who knows, he might even become, in a sense, more of a supporter of the editors involved, if not necessarily the system which I think about half of us have admitted at some time or another needs work. John Carter (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"There are some people that you simply can't have on your staff, for whatever reason," Yes, I once employed one. 8-(

I don't see Peter Damian in this category though, even though he has been regularly presented as such, and he associates via Wikipediocracy with some who I certainly see as fitting that description - including WP admins. We shouldn't be fooled though by the bad press misrepresentation that some axe-grinders have tarred him with. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Editors are not site-banned for light or transient causes. This person clearly did something very wrong to earn this ban, and they give no indication how they would avoid the conduct that caused the ban in the first place. Indeed, the statement that, "Most of the signatories of the ban are now either banned themselves, or have left, or were sockpuppet accounts created specifically to support the ban" seems to suggest that they don't feel that the original ban was justified. If they don't believe that the original ban was justified, then it may be very likely that they will return to the same problematic behavior as before. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, extend the standard offer. This means no socking, no pursuing old grievances, no nonsense. If he's seriously turned a new leaf, let's let bygones be bygones. Jonathunder (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support for revoking the ban, per Bishonen, MastCell, Carrite, ATG, Begoon—i.e. not just because the thought of PD returning makes Ironholds feel ill. Writegeist (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, be nice, we need to look out for our sickly children. Begoon ^talk 00:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Notification: @Ryan Postlethwaite:, @IMatthew:, @Chillum:, @Toddst1:, @Ironholds:, @Brothejr:, @Madman:, @Tenant23:, @Who then was a gentleman?:, @Nja247:, @Baseball Bugs:, @Mikaey:, @Ottava Rima:, @Roux:, @Mazca:, @Javert:, @Bullzeye:, @JamieS93:, @Jennavecia:, @Rodhullandemu:, @Tznkai:, @Will Beback:, @IMatthew:, @Pastor Theo:, @Snow:, @Mythdon:, @Tznkai:, @Ottava Rima:, @Until It Sleeps:, @Jeni: According to the above account, "Most of the signatories of the ban are now either banned themselves, or have left, or were sockpuppet accounts created specifically to support the ban..." Is that true? David Tornheim (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Running through the list there are indeed a number of "retired" banners, others who haven't edited for years, a banned user or two, and at least one blocked sock. If you count those who have edited less than half a dozen times this year (probably to keep tools) as those having "left," the assertion certainly seems correct. Obviously there are others who are still around and active. The phrasing is a bit melodramatic and it does not appear that any socks created to persecute PD were engaged in the ban debate. Carrite (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. You are free to use me as an example of what may be possible when Wikipedia's bans and blocks are all... just... stopped. jps (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — but with a codicil. Peter Damian is an asset that Wikipedia sorely needs. I fear you may unban, unblock, restore his ability to contribute here, and then, at the first conflict or disagreement, if he figuratively raises his voice, slam him down with the strictest possible penalty. Allow me to point out why this would be a grievous error. The man who stands behinds the account is a scholar (Wikipedia needs more of those), an expert and a published author in difficult subjects (Wikipedia needs more of those), accomplished in his use of the English language (Oh my does Wikipedia need more of those), and most unsettling to some of you, he is a man of principle. He cannot watch something unethical or underhanded being done without taking a stand and standing against it. He's upbraided me severely in private for some things I've been soft on at that 'other site,' and shown me his mettle. He will be honest with you. If you can take that (as you do make astonishing allowances for some established contributors), then let him resume his place here. If you can't take the sometime protestations of an honest man, then don't.→StaniStani 01:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh, sure PD has a lot to offer Wikipedia, but I'm not sure how well he'll get along with the current management here in the asylum. Certainly worth a try, but even if he finds things too constrictive here hopefully he'll continue to contribute at that mysterious other place. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 01:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This has actually bothered me for a while. He's an expert and the encyclopedia will be better with his participation than without. Keep our readers first: all else is secondary. Antandrus (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - since we put up with other folks who have subject matter expertise who also occasoinally boil over, I can't see why not. As I recall, he bascially got banned because he dared to question one of the arbs .. who later turned out to deserve questioning. And the Wifione stuff was well done. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, with the caveat that editors who seek to provoke Damien or renew old conflicts with him should treated no less strictly than he is. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unban - clear net positive to the project Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unban - Alot of behaviour while banned has been driven by anger from someone who has the goal of a quality 'pedia at heart. Reconciliation better than more angst. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Chaotic Neutral: Peter Damien is entirely capable of producing above-average editorial work on this project; I don't think there's a lot of doubt about this. And some of the back story (going all the way back to November 2007) that led to his ban has been found, in retrospect, to be highly suspect. (In fact, it was suspect pretty much as soon as some of it happened, and ultimately led to the "resignation" of an arbitrator and the reprimanding of an oversighter.) Having said that, Peter was unblocked once before under the tutelage of one of the most respected Wikipedians of the time (Thatcher), and was unable to keep to the straight and narrow or anywhere close to it, which led in time to the longterm ban under which he currently finds himself. Along the way, he's authored defamatory blogs/web postings, made legal threats serious enough that they were part of the instigation for the Legal Fees Assistance Program, and published many comments off-site that indicate that he views Wikipedia and Wikipedians through a distorted lens (I'm being polite here). If Peter Damien could stick to what he's really good at (which is content - his initial block for an extreme personal attack was bang on and if he did it today would still result in an immediate indefinite block), and if the community can support him on staying focused (both by redirecting him when he seems to be going off on tangents, and by creating a buffer zone if someone attempts to provoke), then there's the chance of a detente here that will benefit the project. I wouldn't stand in the way of an unblock, but I wouldn't be a good person to help out in facilitating a return to the project, based on his reaction the only time we met (and I didn't even know who he was at the time). Risker (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments and concerns I'm really torn on this one. On the one hand, I believe in the standard offer, and a great number of experienced editors above have spoken up in support of Peter and his potential value as a contributor, some even going further to provide perspectives on the incidences that led to his siteban that suggest that he received a disproportionate amount of blame for said conflicts. On the other, I find the tone and content of his request leave me extremely underwhelmed, and indeed concerned about where this users priorities lay. As others have noted, there's little-to-nothing in his comments to suggest that he recognizes where his former approach was problematic, nor much in the way of assurances that he can keep his approach within community standards now. Indeed, he says very little about the circumstances of his ban other than comments which vaguely dismiss those who participated on the discussion that led to his ban. That attitude is disconcerting even before you put it together with the fact that even some of those who support the lifting of the ban describe him as a hothead and the fact that he continued to edit for three years after his ban, until caught.

Of even more concern are the implications raised about the user's ambivalence to the project broadly by some of what I'm hearing here -- that the user has been banned from certain WMF events for general disruptiveness, that they have shown a willingness to out other users and draw them into off-site drama (surely something we should not be taking lightly), and the fact that he is writing a book detailing his views on the "dysfunction" of Wikipedia all seem to suggest a user whose priorities may be less based in the desire to build the encyclopedia than they are based in a fixation on the social and organizational aspects of the project and their own tumultuous history within it. One of the few things PD does say for himself by way of arguing for his value to the project is that he's spent time during his ban writing articles for Wikipediocracy, and he seems to take pride in the fact that some of them have attracted media attention. But the mere fact that a person has a lot to say about the inner workings of Wikipedia doesn't mean they truly understand the same, or that they are capable of collaborating in a productive manner here, especially if there has been evidence to the contrary. And if the sum total of the evidence he can supply for his understanding of Wikipedia behavioural policy is that he has contributed to the (often tortured and misrepresentative) media interpretation of the project, I'm not altogether impressed. This user has had six years with which to consider the wording of their request here, during which time they have clearly spent a great deal of time thinking about Wikipedia. That all they came up with in all that time is the above leaves me wondering just how well they understand what our current policies will require of them.

Look, it's clear from the !votes so far that it's all but a foregone conclusion that the user will be welcomed back into the fold, and I really hope that he'll be the asset his supporters here seem believe he will be. But it would sit better with this one editor if we had a more detailed discussion of what went wrong before and more assurances from Peter that he's learned from past mistakes (whether he was the most problematic party in the previous conflicts or not). I'm also concerned by some of the "and furthermore, any scrutiny of his actions above and beyond the normal should be discouraged" type of comments above. We're talking about a user who has asked us to overturn a siteban, despite the fact that he ignored said ban for years and has taken his conflicts here outside the site. He should be prepared for a great deal of scrutiny as he returns here -- should even welcome it if his request and desire to return to the community are above-board. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. If you all haven't noticed, WP is failing. It's shedding editors like insects from a sheep dipped in a flea bath. We need editors, especially incredibly educated and smart ones like Mr. Damian on the project to try to turn this thing around before the cold, dark ocean closes over our heads and all our hard work disappears into the murky depths of ocean Internet. Cla68 (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noting, as Ealdgyth and Mastcell did, the very helpful work he did on the Wifione case, the fact that he has expertise we need, and my belief if (and that is an if, not a foregone conclusion) there are problems we can handle them. And I prefer hot-blooded to cold-blooded (referring to Bishonen's comment). Dougweller (talk) 06:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. And the guy deserves a big, big apology from all of us for ever being banned at all. What a sad, sorry affair. Everyking (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose based on my personal experience of being a target, my experience as a trustee of WMUK in 2013, and the reasons why at that time the UK chapter events ban was withdrawn by the board. For those that are unaware, trustees may make decisions as a board to protect the interests of the charity, this includes avoiding pointless expense in the face of legal threats. WMUK's concern at the time was the number of Wikimedians attending events in the UK who were realistically worried at being publicly derided or outed by someone with "Peter Damian's" track record of "citizen journalism". I have met "Peter" in real life and feel he makes perfectly good points about things that are plain wrong about the Wikimedia community and the surrounding politics, I include his valid complaint about WMUK fundraising banners which were then withdrawn; lesson learned. However I feel the community should only un-ban in the light of a long problematic track record, when there has been a firm commitment to an equivalent of the wmf:Friendly space policy both for on-wiki and off-wiki behaviour whenever it pertains to Wikimedia. If "Peter" or others with similar citizen journalism hobbies could avoid aggressive/malicious hounding of any Wikimedian who dares to have an opinion, and instead focus on evidence based investigative journalism for the institution, projects or individual figures in central political roles, such as WMF board of trustees (i.e. not their sex lives or gossip about their children), that would be super. When that is seen to be happening I'll change my !vote. --Fæ (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If (and it seems inevitable now) Peter Damian gets unblocked, will he have broken the record for longest overturned site ban? Bosstopher (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Damian Can editors at least try to get his name right? Although this connection has been exploited in the past to portray him as The Antichrist, that isn't helpful here. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Carrite, Nyttend et al. said it best, and I haven't been convinced by any of the opposes (a couple actually made me laugh at their audacity). Black Kite (talk) 09:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unban. It can always be reinstated if the user causes difficulties onwiki. --Dweller (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Maintain ban Given the unrepentant unban request, book and WMUK stuff, I don't see how unbanning this editor could possibly end well. I thought that we'd moved on from the era where productive but chronically disruptive editors were tolerated, and I really have no desire to go back there again. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What WMUK stuff? Surely you don't mean the event ban they imposed, then realised they'd made (yet another) serious mistake and apologised? Why would you still hold that against someone, when even WMUK would no longer do so? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know this editor personally, so I've reviewed some of the content he's written. We need him back.—S Marshall T/C 12:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment At present I have no opinion on the ban, which I read about on Jimbo's talk page. I request that a link to the original banning be placed at the top of this section, so that people can, uh, read about it before making up their minds. Coretheapple (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• conditional support I'd like a topic ban from anything other than content editing and talk pages related to that content. That includes a ban from the drama boards. Revisit in 6 months. I honestly don't see this ending well, as I worry he's only here to stir up trouble. Hobit (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• (EC) Support - Valuable contributor, and generally a decent fellow. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, admins. I have a serious request. I know that it is more than 3 years over but my desire is still to unblock my old User:Morgan Katarn. I feel sorry for my sockpuppet actions but this account has to be unblocked. I talked to the Bureaucrats and they said that they will make a Courtesy Vanishing on my old User:Morgan Katarn if this account is unblocked. And I would appreciate that if you accept my desire. Unblock this account and then I will let the Bureaucrats do a Courtesy Vanishing and after that, I will leave the Wikipedia completely and I will never make a stupid action again. I will leave the Wikipedia. So this user has to be unblocked. Thanks! 91.113.38.214 (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, here you are, evading a block by editing as an IP, to ask of favor of the community. Well, I oppose it. BMK (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See this. BMK (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you intend to leave Wikipedia, there is no readon to unblock you. Just walk away. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the auld account was under his real name, hence the desirability of courtesy vanishing. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely, I'd think. [40] AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are IPs banned from editing. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 22:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A ban applies to the person, not the internet protocol... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which Bureaucrats have told you this? --Dweller (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The request came through the mailing list and the user was told that they are not eligible for a courtesy vanishing as they are currently blocked. This isn't an uncommon situation and I'm not sure why it matters which bureaucrat made the statement. Worm^TT(talk) 10:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to explain to you why I asked, if you ask, but thanks for information. --Dweller (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this is a serious request. The bureaucrats told me on the email that they will do a courtesy vanishing at once but this account needs to be unblocked. It is almost 4 years ago when I got blocked with this account. I fell very sorry of what I've done with that account. Can you please unblock this account? Please don't be so stubborn at all and aggree. This is a very serious request. Please do so and then you can block this user again after the courtesy vanishing ok? But then block this account not for vandalism, just because of the reason that I decided to leave the Wikipedia. 194.118.255.163 (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is just a lot of confusion about your request. You are requesting an unblock of an account, even though you say you are planning to leave Wikipedia. And with the link Andy provided, we now know that this isn't your real name but that of a Star Wars character. So what is the purpose of unblocking an account if you aren't planning on using it? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strange as it may sound, there are plenty of people who (weirdly) named their kids after StarWars characters. What I'd suggest to the user is that he make the request at Meta for a global renaming of his account. He can go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest on any wiki. Hypothetically, he would have to make a link to his old account on the newly named page (e.g., writing on the talk page "I used to be user:Morgan Katarn") but this is not particularly enforceable. He can ask for a new username like "Renamed user 223343242" if he wants. Risker (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Risker: This account is tagged as a sock of Furko Nellis, which is also a Star Wars character. I can't see any good faith reason for this account to be requesting an unblock/courtesy vanishing, but I'm fairly jaded. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is, essentially, to skip the unblocking, recognize there's no such thing as a courtesy vanishing, and get the account renamed if he wants to get it renamed. There are no reported socks for several years, and those accounts would have been blocked for vandalism whether or not they were socks. Some people do mature over time and recognize they've messed up. Incidentally, the bureaucrats should have explained all of this to the user when he emailed them. We should as a community completely remove any reference to the 'crats from the 'rename/vanish' cycle since they no longer have any authority to do renaming; that some individual 'crats are either stewards or global renamers has nothing to do with their enwiki permissions. Risker (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we hear from the OP what the purpose behind the request is? Courtesy vanishings shoulnd;t be handed out like candy, they're a courtesy from the community, and should generally be granted only to users who were in good standing. If a user who is not in good standing wants one, there should be a good reason behind it.

Perhaps the beaureaucrat in question can vouch for the OP's reason, without saying what it is, perhaps that would be sufficient, but without something to base it on, I see no reason to extend a courtesy here. BMK (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I tell you the reason why I want to have courtesy vanishing for my User:Morgan Katarn. The reason is because Morgan Katarn is the name of a Star Wars character and I feel totally unconfortable that this user exists under that name and also the contributions of this account are very unconfortable because I made contributions about cities here in Austria where I live and I do not wish that people around the world can see these contributions in a very quick way. So the main reason why I request a courtesy vanishing is because first of all the name change and another reason is that the contributions of this user should be harder to find. It is awful enough that the contributions of each user exist for the rest of my whole life on the Wikipedia. So hopefully you understand my reason. Please don't ask further more. I'd very appreciate that if you would cooperate and do a courtesy vanishing on this user. Thanks! 194.118.255.163 (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this discussion is back to front. If there is a good reason for the rule that courtesy-vanishing is only for users in good standing, and we want to follow the rule, then the request should be refused. If we are prepared to waive the rule, then just vanish him and be done with it. Unblocking one of his half-dozen accounts will not magically return him to good standing, and unblock-vanish-reblock is just process for the sake of it.

OP, what about your first account, Furko Nellis, and all the others listed in the SPI? JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is because Morgan Katarn is the name of a Star Wars character and I feel totally unconfortable that this user exists under that name and also the contributions of this account are very unconfortable, this is the part I don't get and it looks like you won't be returning to explain. Why do you care about clearing the "good name" of a fictional character? I completely understand if it were your name but I don't see how anyone in Austria could associate you, the person, with these sock accounts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Our social policies are not a suicide pact. If it looks like a troll and sounds like a troll, perhaps it is a troll. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This person's reasons for wanting a courtesy vanishing are ludicrous. Someone please close this thread. BMK (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Special:Contributions/75.146.221.233. This IP editor has started running amok today. It is beyond four edits, albeit to just two articles. Peaceray (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, what do we do about the rather obvious sock puppetry by Zhanzao?

Incidentally: from my Quackford English Ducktionary, "Suck puppetry: Sock puppetry, but done really badly". Guy (Help!) 21:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it right. It looks like that was the sole reason why Occultzone even bothered. Actually anyone would if a serious report confirming violation of so many years and supported by every necessary evidences would had been rejected and socks were treated were so greatly. I fail to find if any rules that would justify such abuse, or even a prior sock puppetry case. Automatically, I feel discriminated because I cannot sock even for one edit, while Zhanzhao can for every edit. Delibzr (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't encourage him. Sockpuppetry has only continued to be disproved by CUs and other admins since you yourself told OZ to drop it, JzG. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was before the WP:BROTHER comment above. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Occult had asked Jzg to see this set, and Jzg told him "that it's unlikely" per CU, but these socks are also blocked now and we are back to the convictions of socking where you found brother excuses, and now again questioning the heroic release from sock puppetry, though he really wanted to sock. If I have definitely told one to "stop using your family relatives, friends for socking", while I sock all time and upon conviction I tell that "I didn't socked, my brother helps and stalks my contribution history", would you believe it? How dense it would be. Delibzr (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TO Delibrzr, actually the context was totally different back then. If you looked at the thread where that about me supposing to know about meatpuppetry [132], it was quoted by DanS76, not me; it was from years ago; and the offending editor Ahnan was actively going to off-wiki forums to recruit people to come into Wikipedia to editwar on his side. When that policy was mentioned years ago, I didn't even think much about the family angle, it was just looking at the "off-wiki" part when I saw that. And you'll observe from the conversation that DanS76 was riling Ahnan up while I was trying to calm Ahnan down to prevent prevent escalation (yes, we don't always agree, which I pointed out before in the old SPI).Zhanzhao (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That means that the named account still socked along with you, while warning others not to do the same. Hypocritical. I don't care how much you both were bullying Ahnan or any other editors you have. I am just saying that it all looks so fake, and unsupported by any rules. Delibzr (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As the result of several SPIs, numerous CUs/clerks/admins have determined (both with behavioural and technical evidence) that: ZHANZAO IS NOT DEMONSTRABLY VIOLATING SOCKPUPETTRY POLICY.
  I don't know how much clearer this can be made. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That barbaric shout is clearly unhelpful and it comes with no evidence and contrary to they have written above. "both with behavioural and technical evidence" definitely share mutuality when they are also admitted by the suspect. Why you are deceiving? I just asked if you will take same kind of heroic decision when anyone else would be convicted upon socking, which is still not answered by you. Delibzr (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Salvidrim! I reduced your 100px red rant down to 20px, which is bad enough. You're an admin, you should know better than to do shit like that. Please don't do it again. BMK (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, BMK. I dunno if OZ is contagious but it seems I am also having some trouble letting go of this -- how ironic that I should fall prey to the same pitfalls I am accusing OZ of digging himself in. These are hopefully my last words on this whole shitstorm. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand precisely what you mean. BMK (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Declaration: As mentioned, I would not find any issue if a new SPI was raised against me by OZ based on suspicious new socking activity. The WP:BROTHER angle is no longer in the equation as DanS76 has quit. At risk of self-outing, I've even sent OZ and another 2 admins info about me and my family which shows that I actually have 2 brothers. However I can reveal that the 2nd one is overseas long-term, and (I asked) he does not edit on wikipedia. So even that is a non-issue. Its a waste of me, OZ, and everyone else's time to repeatedly defend myself again and again over the same evidence. I'm not afraid of continued scrutiny since I don't sock. I just want to move on and not have to continually return to a dead-horse-flogging-party with everyone else. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You have warned others against such meat puppetry as well and you clearly knew what can happen when you told others not to make such "mistake", lobbying one admin is not going to remove the heinous breach that you have done. Delibzr (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not lobby anyone. I only sent out the personal info to 3 people in response to OZ's claims I was making up the fact about having brothers - him being one the people I sent it to, and 2 other admins who volunteered to look at the info. And for that 2010 case, I repeating a warning to the other editor about recruiting someone fresh from outside wiki to help him in his edit war: I was not the one who posted the Meatpuppetry policy, so I only read a few lines above that thread about the quoted policy and was focused more on the "recruiting people from the outside to participate" bit, and barely though about that after the incident. I did not fully realize the implication of having someone who is also an editor in the same family and would edit similarly would face. Once asked about our relationship, I clarified it immediately, the admin suggested that we should make clear on our individual accounts that we were related/editing from the same IP, which was done. And that DanS76 has retired his account makes it doubly certain this would not be an issue anymore moving forward. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Zhanzhao as multiple editors have raised concerns over your actions they want some outcome. I would propose that you should agree to restrict yourself to one account from now. No IPs or any accounts, any other violation can lead to indef. Any other account that you used before can be blocked now, as you have also confirmed that they are of no use. So would you agree? SamuelDay1 (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SamuelDay1, I have no intention of violating any rules. Anything I have done, I did with the best of intentions. Anything I did wrong, I am prepared to deal wih it. If I intended to sock, I would have just abandoned this account which has so much baggage. But I continue with it, warts and all with all the SPI and block history, because I have always been transparent about everything I have done. Even OZ pointed out above of an instance when I accidentally edited while logged out, and logged in just to clarify it was me. So again, this was, is and will be the only account I use on wikipedia Zhanzhao (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I may consider that you have accepted my above proposal already? SamuelDay1 (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes with a strong emphasis. Because irregardless of what others believe, editing with one account is what I have always done. You can also include a furter note that if there is evidence of meatpuppetry, WP:FAMILY or WP:BROTHER, that counts against me as well - if anyone else in my family begins to edit here, I think I will really just quit Wikipedia totally to avoid all this drama again. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Zhanzhao has now agreed that he would restrict himself to one account and any other accounts(namely DanS76) can be blocked. Closing admin should log this entry as restriction to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Worm That Turned, OccultZone, Begoon, Hijiri88, Yunshui and others can also see that he has taken these concerns and is willing to move forward. SamuelDay1 (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no problem with it, thank you for your efforts. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• UPDATED: As OccultZone has made it clear on my page that he would not be filing SPIs against me again, I will take his word for it since he has also promised Begoon the same. As mentioned repeatedly, I leave the door open to him filing a new SPI against me if he should notice new suspicious activity from me. This has always been my desired outcome. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a good choice to limit with one account and leave other accounts behind. Both have agreed too. Delibzr (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]