User talk:Peter Damian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Welcome back. -- Naerii 20:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

A very welcome back. Please don't allow private correspondence from unremitted staff, voicing their own opinions, to cloud your judgement. Giano (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right. But I sensed a dread hand behind that email. Peter Damian (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope you are wrong! Giano (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Little Peter surely correct, sadly. ['zilla stuff little user in pocket, climb Reichstag. ] bishzilla _ROARR!! 21:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC).

Thank you for these kind messages, didn't understand a word of the last one. Peter Damian (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Please click on links including roaring. bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC).

Ah - now understand. Peter Damian (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Welcome back. Sorry I wasn't able to be of more help to you. GRBerry 14:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 Comment by FT2 2 comment by Damian 3 Reply 4 Isagogue 5 RFA Thanks 6 A message for Daniel Brandt 7 Hi! 8 Hi again 9 Nice try

[edit] Comment by FT2

Actually, for what it's worth, if I'm being referred to here, my "dread email" to arb-l read as follows.

Disclosed for transparency. That is how an Arbitrator should act, even when nobody is monitoring them. I believe I'm allowed to cite myself, and on this occassion - exceptionally - choose to do so for "Peter"s benefit and information.

Email 1: If I've got it right, then the above is a new username of a user blocked in December 2007, in connection with various issues. He looks like he's asking (or preparing to ask) for an unblock. Two comments: I had a long LONG discussion today in which I expressed strongly that I felt hearing him openly and on-wiki as he asks would be a good thing, even though in many cases we require such users to email the list. If the case is heard, I would ask that from the time a venue is decided and a statement presented, any actual discussion of his ban itself is held off-list. Again, "best practice". The aim in both cases is identical. To quote myself: ArbCom members should be utterly above all such and if a doubt arises its important anyone who wants to hear can see the evidence. There is nothing privacy related here. All he's been venting about is to get unblocked. Whether he will act again as he has before, or not, is a risk I'm willing to take for the sake of openness of the Committee. Plus it's his only actual problem. I'm aware that nobody with any sense thinks anything's up, but I feel strongly that it is important that there be zero doubt, when we have cases that even tangentially, an arbitrator may be non-neutral on, then we take whatever steps we can to be open about it. Compare the drama over poetlister where we simply made a summary statement, vs. archtransit where we explained broadly the kind of evidence we had and let it be public. This is a similar case, where openness will show there is clear and simple evidence and whatever the decision is will be obvious. Handling it off-wiki has drama potential. He's not a sock, not a habitually disruptive editor, he's written good content over the years and wants back. Would it be possible to arrange whatever is decided, to be done in a way that is as transparent as possible? That said no appeal has yet formally been submitted by any route, that's just my view up front.

And again:

A second email

A private request for whoever replies to Peter Damien. My concern is as stated, it's better in public. Privacy just doesn't serve us well if not needed. We hear in private for privacy issues more than for drama reduction (**). An on-wiki hearing will remove all doubt and give a more solid basis for communal agreement of his case without concerns. However, if it is heard in private, could whoever sends the confirmatory email please include as follows. It is /very important to me/ that he's made aware of it, even if consensus doesn't agree. Please? Thanks. === INCLUDE THIS SNIP "Please note that FT2 has requested strongly that the matter be heard in public, and that deliberations if accepted are kept off the Committee's mailing list. He has given permission for his email to be quoted...<snip>" ** Not strictly true, my bad. We also hear in private since the basic purpose of a ban is to remove from the wiki, a user and the disruption or problems they bring (which we have not been able to resolve by any lesser process).

And again, a third time (you have to keep asking sometimes):

A further email

These are the concerns I'm aware of in deciding "public or private". There's a few of them, some are important: Banned users are normally heard off-wiki, especially if their ban resulted from defamation issues and might result in drama or a "platform". Opposing view 1 - there is nothing inherently private here and the defamation claim has been judged by the community and others and found meaningless; I'm not averse to it. Opposing view 2 - A number of users are aware of his claims and would probably be more reassured to see them rebutted publicly than in covert discussion. There are concerns that having been unable to stay off the topic twice now, he will be unable to in future. Opposing view - if his case is demolished then the allegations die down? But they may not, or the rebuttal may be /really/ bad for him IRL. Any hearing will inevitably discuss [redacted for user's benefit, as could be self-identifying]. I assume from the RTV and new name he wants to avoid that. It's going to be difficult to both avoid that problem and also have a public hearing. Opposing view - [redacted other info user has stated] anyway so it's not really private. But he may not realize that. A sitting arb was the subject of the action, if the ban stands then it will be said there was bias, whereas if it's public it will be obvious what was said and done, the evidence, and conditions etc. He is, apart from this one issue, a productive editor well worth getting back if he can be reliably stable and genuinely agree its closed. We /need/ to be open. But we cannot do so without the evidence about his block being public too. I don't think this is for us to resolve; whatever we might decide is WP:WRONG. <snip - roughly concludes that Peter Damian should be made aware of the issues, and asked by an uninvolved arbitrator, for his preference.>

Cited complete, verbatim, unedited, from 04/25/2008 and 04/26/2008. This is the standard that's expected to be taken for granted on ArbCom - being utterly neutral and considering all sides fairly -- even for one's own attacker. There were others, same concerns.

And also note this is not here to "prove" anything, per se. It wasn't written for public. You won't often see internal arb-l emails. This is an exception for transparency and because a user - even a hostile, defamatory, banned user - should never have to doubt their handling will be as fair as practical regardless, and handled as best possible. How it's taken is a matter of complete indifference. The offering of the information, though, is what is appropriate.

Whatever's decided will be decided by the Committee, based on evidence, discussion, and dialog, as for any ban appeal. I have taken steps not to be party to the deliberations, as stated above, and will therefore complain strongly if I am copied in on it by any other person against my wishes. I believe this has been fully conveyed to its intended recipients. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] comment by Damian

The long rant above has nothing to do with the matter, which was Thatcher's email to me privately complaining that "FT2 has expressed concern (as an editor whom you attacked, not as an arbitrator) that you were unblocked, and the request from Arbcom forme to unblock you may have been premature due to a miscommunication.)" The email also contained details of things that FT2 has complained about for some time, so I can only assume most of the content was communicated to Thatcher by FT2.

The stuff on this page is much more sinister. "The rebuttal may be really bad for him in real life'. Yes I'm aware that FT2 knows my real name, knows my workplace email and knows my concern about the vicious block messages deliberately placed so that colleagues at work could see it. And the bit "Any hearing will inevitably discuss [redacted for user's benefit, as could be self-identifying]. " is also disturbing.

Calling me a 'hostile, defamatory, banned user' is not helpful either. And why are these constant references to 'the community'. The community has judged this and that? Bullshit. These comments are deliberately intended to marginalise my complaint. The case should go to Arbcom and any judgments should be reserved for that august body.

I do not want these threats placed on my page. I accepted the unblock on the understanding that I would take the matter up in public. Then I get an abusive email from Thatcher instigated by FT2. This is not acceptable. I am emailing Arbcom in private. Peter Damian (talk) 06:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Well, I've formatted your refs (which should really be in-line citations) and removed POV, so i've atoned Jimfbleak (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! it was all in jest anyway. Peter Damian (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Isagogue

Many thanks for your note, and kind words about my introduction! I've added to the page you wrote a link to the English translation itself of the Isagogue. Roger Pearse 15:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A message for Daniel Brandt

I am no troll. Peter Damian (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

I'm just wasting your time, but I thought it was cool to see your name on the recentchanges log. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 07:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

How else would I know you? :) Shalom (Hello • Peace) 07:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. You might have an interest in Medieval philosophy of course.  :-( Peter Damian (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi again

Glad to have you back. 271828182 (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Greetings large-numbered one. Peter Damian (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nice try

I've followed this article for a couple of years. Its refreshing to have people with expertise try to contribute. The boorish often prevail here, and there's no way to control it. The way the system is set up itself is insane. I appreciated your efforts, and have learned something from your efforts. I agree with your statement, its insane to try to make a serious contribution here. That was a flash of the rational. I'll try to take your messages to heart, and realize its just a glimmer of the potential of a well written article that could have been. Best wishes. Richiar (talk) 07:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC) (Psychiatrist in real life)

thank you Richiar. Yes, I remember your profession. Perhaps you should offer your services on the talk page. Peter Damian (talk) 11:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)