==*Welcome back. -- Naerii 20:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[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)[reply]

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

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)

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi, I've nominated Avicennism as a good article. Please check it and help me with it before a reviewer start reviewing it. I also put some tags on Medieval philosophy and explain the problems on the talk page. --Seyyed(t-c) 11:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are some wikipedians like Jagged who can help you with the sections of medieval philosophy which relates to Muslim philosophers. I found some mistakes like [1] in related articles. Due to the fact that I'm a Persian and I know Arabic, I can help you with translations and technical expressions as well as the sources and ideas of Muslim philosophers. --Seyyed(t-c) 13:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at the Philosophy page from time to time, but it's generally been moribund. It's stunning that a group of people, some of them very intelligent, can't figure out how to start the article. Not that I have a magic solution. Cheers. KD Tries Again (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

The article (or rather, just that section of the article) has been under persistent attack by a problem editor, Skoojal (talk). His edits are almost all stylistically clumsy and he is a total ignoramus about philosophy, but he, like so many others, has lots of time on his hands and a lumberjack's collection of axes to grind (glance at his edit history and you'll find a crusade to eliminate the word 'gay' and replace it with 'homosexual', as well as an explicitly stated campaign to make Frederick Crews look bad). In this case, he had decided that particular paragraph is riddled with POV. As with my earlier go-round with Lucaas over the Being & Time article, I have adopted a strategy of heavy citation. This wins sentence-by-sentence battles, but the formerly short and snappy paragraph ends up a piecemeal string of references, with the spirit and style washed out. I think it was all set off by my use of the word pace, which he repeatedly called "snide" and has deleted. I suspect he didn't know what it meant, had to figure it out, and that really got his drawers in a bunch. 271828182 (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make comments like this about me, I suggest that you make them to me directly in future. To address one of your claims above, I was well aware what pace means. Not all readers would be, however, so it had to be changed. Skoojal (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I suspected that from the style of some of the rewrites. I completely hate this piecemeal cite-by-cite approach so that every sentence is festooned with endnotes looking like an attack of headlice. You have my full support, indeed if you can point me to some particular examples I will actually help - I don't know much about the subject but a lot of this is simply about style and sources. You got me interested in Deleuze by the way. Peter Damian (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to look at "Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy" by De Landa, its a very interesting take on Deleuze, an attempt to interpret him for an Anglo-Saxon tradition. --Snowded (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not impressed by Delanda. Just read Deleuze. Skoojal continues to be a nuisance. He has extended his dictates of style to the effacement of parentheses. 271828182 (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at existence precedes essence; yes, it's bad, but I don't have time to do the from-scratch rewrite that is called for. It is worthy of being an article, though. 271828182 (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at existence precedes essence too. Wouldn't have expected an article on it, and it's badly written. As a simple expression of Sartre's view, it's okay, but it gives the bizarre impression that Sartre was wrestling with a position advanced by Avicenna. I can't really comment on Avicenna and Averroes, but I should have thought their positions related to existence/essence in scholasticism, and should be dealt with elsewhere. I now fear to look at Deleuze.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

It's from the Wikipedia Islamic school. See the rather odd Islamic Golden Age for a flavour of the style required.

Peter Damian (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to clarify the issue on History of philosophy. Mulla Sadra lived after that age. He's neither an scholastic philosopher nor peripatetic one. He belongs to mystic tradition in Islamic philosophy. I tried to improve that article by adding some reliable source. By the way I propose moving this debate to the talk page of that article.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Damian, I suggest that you respond to my comments on the Deleuze talk page. Skoojal (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you have little knowledge of the true history of Greek Philosophy. May I suggest you read "Stolen Legacy" by George G.M. James. Once you have read that book, you will completely understand why I have made changes to the article on philosophy. The world should know the truth. You should also read (William Turner's Hist. of Phil.)and (W.H. Couch's Hist. of Greece) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navelio (talk • contribs) 16:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at this editor's contributions, I think that Peter might find this page appropriately funny. GRBerry 16:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you GRB. And thank you Navelio. I am still bemused by the idea that the word 'philosophy' is African but I promise to look out for this book and learn some more. Peter Damian (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK I read this which explains all. Pythagoras learned all his philosophy from the Egyptians. Much of Aristotle's work was not written by him, but by the Egyptians &c. I'm not sure this view is sufficiently notable enough to include in Wikipedia, although it all sounds very plausible and may be true. The problem is we are bound to verifiability, not truth. Sorry. Peter Damian (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But thats just the thing, you know this to be true. Even the Greeks have admitted that Philosophy came from Egypt and that it was stolen by Aristotle during Alexander the Greats invasion of Egypt. There is more then enough proof. So why not change the Philosophy page, edit it and put up correct information for people to read and learn. Be honest, what proof is there showing that Greek Philosophy really is Greek Philosophy? Theres no way to Verify if it is really of Greek birth.

You have a very good point. Sadly I have been banned forever from Wikipedia for arguing just this kind of thing. Perhaps you could try to continue the good work? This is important stuff, you will just have to deal with a lot of POV warriors. Good luck. Peter Damian (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i saw you spammed with nonsensical wp:or. the citations sure, those are fine mark-ups. the original research, i'm sorry it is nonsense. it is common general history that needs citation at best and really doesn't need that other than to fit policy, it wouldn't need to be in any other encyclopedia. --Buridan (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i do think it could use many cite tags, i think you can add as many of those as you need. Then we can wait a week or ten and delete the nonsense.--Buridan (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. It's certainly a bad idea to let Gordon Chen edit Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you wrote here was waaaay off the mark, potentially libelous and seriously unwarranted. In fact, I'm of the opinion that they need oversight. Not to mention that the RFA has already ended and you're striking other people's votes because you disagree. Then you used a name that may or may not be their RL name. Just what are you *doing* here??? Calling someone a "pervert" and suggesting they are a paedophile?? wtf?? - Alison ^❤ 22:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go on ban me then. Support these perverts. Peter Damian (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neither in the business of banning you nor "supporting perverts", so don't even go there. What you said was completely out of order - Alison ^❤ 22:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit has been oversighted, like the old days right? Anyone who says that age doesn't matter is a pervert in my book, and in this context. Animals, 12 year old boys, who cares Alison. Peter Damian (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember WP:CIVIL.Thanks!--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 23:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Nonsense. Put it this way - if I'd not got here first, you'd have been very muchly banned for what you just said. So don't try and tar me with that wide brush of yours, either. As an expert witness, I've already seen two kidporn merchants get safely locked up, back in Ireland. So don't go there - Alison ^❤ 23:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC) (you get to have the last word. I'm busy)[reply]

Well don't oversight my edits like the last time. What did you actually do against the kidporn merchants apart from read it in the newspaper. Peter Damian (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be appropriate for an administrator to take action against you, especially considering your history of baseless accusations against FT2. You unapologetically attempted to out me and borderline accused me of molesting children . For the record, I fully support the age-of-consent. Having sex is obviously not in the same league as having a "Delete" button. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go on ban me then. Peter Damian (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do good work, when you want to. It would be a shame to ban you. But perhaps, if you can't stop disrupting that RfA, a block until it's over (including any after discussion) might be in order... I see you seem to have stopped for now, please don't resume. Hint: edits that get oversighted usually are a sign that you might want to change your approach. ++Lar: t/c 23:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the rfa was withdrawn so it was already closed but peter here chose to try and inflame things further. those accusations were despicable and libellous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryan. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 23:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read your post on WR. I have just dealt with a rampant sockpuppeteer User:Burrburr and friends, whose main activity is to remove such pro-pedo edits from dead historical figures. I suspect he was correct on substance but the abusive sockpuppetry (80+ accounts) was unacceptable. It would be a good thing for a knowledgeable, non-sockpuppet using editor to perform the same sort of review, as long as it is done civilly etc. The pro-pedos will find it much harder to revert someone of relatively higher status (most of Burrburr's accounts edited for only a day or two, so it was easy to label them as vandals or "single purpose accounts" and deprecate their edits). This is, of course, harder to do with an established named editor. Thatcher 15:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks my doppelganger User:Hinnibilis is dealing with this one. I'll do my best but you know I have a somewhat short fuse but I am no stranger to long spells in solitary. Peter Damian (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... are following this and this, I trust? Bishonen | talk 11:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, but sadly I missed that, and as usual the whole thing is completely incomprehensible unless you came in at the very beginning. The only bit I understand is "FT2, your last post at the AN subpage is utterly incomprehensible. ". Is there a translation or brief summary anyone has prepared? Peter Damian (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh noo...'zilla can't face reading up... FT2 always incomprehensible... go climb Reichstag or ask User:Carcharoth or something... anything... Tokyo in imminent danger ... puny 'shonen not surprised apparently...[2] ['Zilla lumber off despondently] bishzilla _ROARR!! 19:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

[Perkily] Little Stupid understand nothing! Nothing! Little Stupid (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Oh well - but thanks for letting me know. I have read a bit more since, though can't entirely make sense of it. The problem is that Wikipedia's disjointed and atemporal way of handling discussion makes all text resemble a James Joyce novel. Peter Damian (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see this is being discussed here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=222518717#Bad_Blocks

But under what strange assumption have I been 'harassing' another user? I accused FT2 of 'in effect' enabling pro-paedophile editors by blocking me and about the only other person prepared to put an end to nonsense claims like 'Jules Verne was a paedophile'. Yes, true. Another set of organisations I am contacting is the many Jules Verne societies. Oops but is that a 'legal threat'? Let's see. Peter Damian (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comments here and the preceeding discussions, I have shorted your block to one week, including "time served." There are no conditions, but it might be wise to avoid discussing FT2 in the future. If the assumptions of bad faith and jumping to conclusions you have engaged in regarding him continue, support for the next unblock is likely to be scarce. Thatcher 16:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]