I read that, and it's like you're channeling Jimbo himself. Seriously, I could ALMOST see Jimmy writing that drivel with a straight face.

I've just remembered the little 'message' that FT2 left on my talk page when I first opened the Damian account in May.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Damian

This consists almost entirely of emails that were circulated at Arbcom. So how is it that when I post a document (not an email) on my talk page I am blocked (by the inappositely named LaraLove), but FT2 is not? We should be told. And why is it that replying to such a message on one's talk page is seen as harrassment, but actually leaving the message is not?

Again, Lara, we should be told.



I am not interested in 'perspectives', I am interested in the truth.

Because you were lower in the pecking order.

If you think of it as a status game/ personality contest, it's not so difficult to understand. Oh, that and he didn't imply you are a paedo-loving beastialist

I already told you more than once to knock it off with the bullshit comments toward me in the forums while kissing my ass in pm. I'm looking into your case, you know this, and we've been in communication for days over this. So answer me this, here in the forums:

Do you want me to look into your case or not?

If you do, you need to stfu about me in here unless it's in the same tone as your pms. Otherwise, you're coming off as two-faced, and by God, you can find someone else to put themselves on the line over this shit.

I really don't want any help from someone who talks like this. Thanks for the offer of help (it was your offer, remember), but no thanks. There is too much of the prisoner-jailer relationship here for me to be comfortable with that. You know about the way that people taken prisoner by terrorists develop these odd relationships with their captors. I don't want to go there.

I think you want to have it both ways: to have a position you regard as important on Wikipedia, and to swagger around here as though you are a sympathetic rebel. Not with me. Thanks, but no thanks.

This was just carried out. I came here to post it and read the above message from Peter Damian.

For the record, Peter has been very rude and disrespectful to me here in the forums, while being quite the opposite to me in pms regarding my further investigation into his case. So please, everyone be aware that he's quite two-faced.

Over the past few days, I've been reviewing all the relevant pages, discussions and diffs. I've undone my actions because I believe it's the right thing to do. I am, however, not going any further with this, as I had told Peter in pm that I would do. It's rather risky for me to do so, and considering his total lack of respect in public view, I see no need to put myself on the line for him. His accounts are unblocked, linked to one another, and he should be be fine as long as he minds his manners.

Thank you. I'm sorry if you felt it was rude and disrespectful - it was gentle teasing in my view and, as you know, I quite like you. As for disrspectful, that is the problem with the prisoner-jailer relation I mentioned above.

In my view, the correct thing would have been for you to hand the block to Thatcher, who had been dealing with the earlier one. Then you would not have been at risk from the current unblock.

I also see you have put yourself at risk by revealing the contents of the arbcom letter to me on-wiki. You don't have to do that, you know.

As I say, I quite like you (there - in public), I'm sorry if there has been any bad feeling.



Why would this be any riskier than unrolling back the arbcom letter contents?

Undoing my own actions is not controversial. Opening up official ArbCom correspondence after FT2 did the same, that's not controversial either. All of my reverts were of my own use of the tools, no one elses. I also spoke with the admin for whom had brought the issue to my attention to begin with to inform that further investigation was taking place and that I felt like I'd been intentionally put in a bad spot. That is, however, my own fault.

By putting myself on the line further, I mean taking the details and diffs you've presented to support your case, the one you started in December, and taking it further. I've been cutting back on Wikipedia, and the internet altogether, for a short while now. Better things to do, I'm over the stress, and I'm sick of checking admin (and even at times, non-admin) account contributions and finding practically, if not literally, no content contributions. Then I realized that mine do not look much better. So what time I do spend on Wikipedia now, will mostly be in article space, hopefully.

Well, thank you again, and sorry if my words sounded harsh - that was not intended. take care

Thank you. And apologies in return for being snippy... and foul-mouthed. I need to work on that.