User talk:Peter Damian

Peter Damian is unable to retire

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! It appears that you are attempting to destroy Wikipedia. Please be aware that editors are expected to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, and attempts at destroying the project will lead to blocks, bans and worse. Please stop your destruction attempts immediately. Use the sandbox for any test destruction you would like to perform, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Stock Stabbor (talk) 11:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Note, user just created account. ceranthor 13:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

No template man. Destroying Wikipedia is something you will simply have to do by any and all means outside of the scope you have been given as an editor. Sorry. Law _{type! snype?} 13:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh god, we're all gonna die. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Since Peter was warned against destroying Wikipedia several hours ago, and since then I can see no efforts towards destroying Wikipeida, I think we have to AGF that he has taken the warning to heart.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think if Peter can give his word that he is no longer trying to intentionally disrupt Wikipedia(a reasonable standard) we should consider an unblock, however simply assuming it is the fact seems unrealistic(considering he outright reject a prior warning and blanked his page). Chillum 13:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see no intentional disruption. I only see overreactions to strongly expressed criticism of Wikipedia. This was a stupid block. Hans Adler 14:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hans, posting these goals:

"

1. Demoralise the vandal fighters. Constantly vote against every RfA. Reduce the number of administrators to such a pitiful level that they will all give up.
2. Demoralise the content contributors so they leave. To an extent this is already happening. The problem here however is that most of the 'community' would welcome them leaving. Then they could concentrate on their job of fighting vandalism and keeping the encyclopedia eternally in the state it was in 2005.
3. Attack the source of funds. This would be very effective but difficult. Requirement: a few articles in respectable journals that showed properly how Wikipedia was distorting human knowledge. (To make up for that ridiculous and skewed 'Nature' article). Properly wzzrite up the stuff about pedophiles, zoophiles, pornographers, Objectivists. Publicise this widely. Talk with journalists.
4. Subtle vandalism. This makes me uncomfortable, however.
5. Form an alliance with the natural enemies of Wikipedia such as Britannica.
6. Get sponsorship from wealthy person or corporation who would pay editors to contribute."

"Wikipedia cannot be redeemed. It's not Arbcom, it's not 'Jimbo' it's not the system. It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed."

Certainly is disruptive. These are not criticisms, they are a list of bad things he is going to do. I think him giving his word that he is not going to disrupt our project is the very minimum needed for this user to be unblocked. Chillum 14:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I didn't see that 6-point list. I guess it was off-wiki and is taken out of context here, but it's certainly enough to make me think and strike out my last sentence above. Hans Adler 14:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree the block message could have been more clear. Peter linked to these off-wiki comments at RfA as he began to enact the "Constantly vote against every RfA" part of his plan. Chillum 14:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Off wiki is off wiki. You cannot block someone for something he says somewhere else. You cannot block Chillum for something he says at the High Times message board, even about Wikipedia. You cannot block "Law" for something he says at the Cato Institute's picnic. We are not allowed to go combing through the world wide web, assuming that all account names are the same, that all identities are the same, that all comments can be attributed to the same individuals, and that the policies of Wikipedia constrain a person's actions anywhere else. This is utter nonsense. If Peter's comments were, in fact, off Wikipedia, I will unblock him this instant. Show me that they were on Wikipedia, and there's a discussion (they still look like exasperated recommendations rather than an agenda of action). Indefinite block, though? That's crazy in any case. Geogre (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Just realised there was no link from here to -Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Community review of Law's block of Peter Damian - where the block is being (extensively) discussed. Davewild (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

Can you promise not to intentionaly destroy wikipeda or engage in vandalism (subtle or otherwise)? Hipocrite (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I imagine that he can, but is that much sufficient? I have enough faith in PD's good intentions to believe that he wouldn't set out to "destroy" the project, nor even to subtly vandalise it, but I have almost no faith remaining that he could refrain from being disruptive at a level that irritates and wastes the time of other contributors. He has made significant contributions to content, yet has also wasted the effort of others who could also have been contributing. Is his effect overall positive or negative? Is his contribution really worth the trouble? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is the question we should really ask. But it's not what we normally do here. We usually go out of our way to give disruptive people who are too stupid to write an encyclopedia second, third and fourth chances if we think they mean well. If a disruptive editor pays with an occasional well-written article we should be more lenient, not less. Hans Adler 17:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

We are unusually forgiving of deliberate vandals, but that's the root of our policy: we always forgive, but sometimes we take protective measures to safeguard the future. We would also forgive PD his past disruptions (For that's what it is Peter, it's not some clever attempt to improve things that we're all too stupid to understand, it's just the same egotistical posturing as the teenagers, only with better spelling.), but where does the project community's best interests lie? Tolerate, or carry on without? I'm certainly shifting from one to the other. Off-wiki activities are relevant too, because they're just as forgivable as on-wiki activities are, but equally they indicate a future risk. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let me just get at that "clever" thing. As I gather it, Peter was voting to oppose at RFA. When badgered about why, he linked to an explanation at WR. The thing at WR said that Wikipedia is so corrupt that it can't go on as it is and that people need to vote to oppose automatically from now on.

Well, that's actually pretty law abiding. He opposed, as was his right. He didn't have to explain, but his opposition could be disregarded if it looked like a reflex (if only such supports were similarly challenged and similarly disregarded). He therefore provided the rationale. The rationale was incendiary, which is in keeping with WR.

So, we have "when at 4Chan do as 4Chan does" as one factor. When at WR, conform to its expectations. Filter that away, and what Peter said in the "manifesto" is gloomy but not terroristic. It's almost reasonable. If you grant his case, that the situation is so overloaded with self-promoting (literally, self promotion giving) people and unlicensable and unexaminable individuals who engage in cults of personality and log rolling, then the reasonable solution would be to make it stop. If other forms of getting remedy are impossible, an auto-no vote is as reasonable as anything else.

I saw someone recently argue that everyone should be an admin after a set amount of time and that you need a powerful reason to vote no. If that's actually the mentality of some, then those people need to be matched by at least an equal number citing Peter's position (if not his WR language).

So, is it really too clever? I don't know, but it sure isn't a bomb in the heart of the steerage section. It's a guy who thinks things are gone too far and who is still here and apparently still trying in good faith to do what he thinks is right. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked2

You have been blocked by me for a period of one minute. This is because, by linking to a Wikipedia Review manifesto, you gave wind to the sails of the unthinking, reflex-only, trollish people who have Wikipedia accounts. I hope that, after that minute is up, you may edit in good faith. If you believe that the project is untenable, then you will hardly be alone in this thought. Opposing the RFA candidates who get unthinking, bused in supports without having done a danged thing for the encyclopedia is reasonable, in my opinion, as RFA is not only broken, but the consequences of its being broken were visible with your block. The person who blocked you violated blocking policy numerous ways and, honestly, should face sanction over his or her act.

Then again, I've only been editing since 2003, so I probably don't know how Wikipedia really works. Geogre (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Geogre. Peter Damian (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Since people will go ape

Durova came to my talk page to ask me to un-unblock this user. Unlike User:Law, who blocked without so much as even putting a template on the user's page, much less any effort at discussion, I will cross post my serious reply:

I'm afraid I cannot, and let me explain why my ground is solid, here:

1. It's my feeling that the AN/I discussion showed no consensus. A failure to have consensus in the case of long standing users defaults to unblock.
2. The block was procedurally improper. The admin would need to warn, seek to defuse, and then block if necessary.
3. The block was additionally improper in that there was no blocked template placed on the user.
4. The block was additionally improper in that it was on the basis of off-Wikipedia words. One cannot be blocked for something said on 4Chan. That Peter Damian linked to it was some justification, but all that it gives us is "this user is voting to oppose RFA's without a valid reason." The last time I checked, that's not reason to block someone.

This was, as you will see, a block of Peter Damian. I think he did something wrong. The administrator who blocked him was in conflict with him and went wildly overboard and made a complete hash of things. It won't stand. Geogre (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi Peter, we've interacted once or twice before (mainly over the FlyingToaster RfA) but don't really know each other. I did not think the recent block of you (now undone) was a good idea at all, though I also didn't think what you were doing at RfA was at all helpful. This has now escalated into some ridiculous nonsense at ANI (as you'll see if you haven't already) and it will undoubtedly only get worse. There are some legitimate concerns about your participation at WP:RFA (a place I don't much frequent because I don't care for what goes on there for the most part), and I'm wondering if this whole situation (at least on your end) can't be nipped in the bud if you just voluntarily announce that you won't participate at RfA or its talk page. It's kind of a weird part of the encyclopedia anyway, as I'm sure you'll agree, so I don't think you'd be missing much. Perhaps if you're willing to take this step, some of the current concerns will be allayed, and we can avoid escalating this to RfC or even ArbCom, which is not in anyone's best interests because drama is dumb. This is just a suggestion obviously and comes only from me, who is no one of any particular importance. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Although this says it all. Peter Damian (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That thread is helpful in terms of the background, some of which I knew about. Incidentally, one of my two undergraduate majors was philosophy, but I don't care much for the analytic tradition that dominates here in the U.S. (I found one class on Action theory particularly maddening), and thus never considered going to grad school in that field. I do still know a good amount about Nietzsche, though that knowledge gets more hazy as the years go on. That guy was smart!

I take it you plan on continuing your participation in RfAs for now which is of course your wont. Personally I think you're tilting at windmills over there, in the sense of fighting an unwinnable battle, particularly since your views in RfAs are probably going to be ignored more often than not. Also not participating would definitely result in less hassle for you and leave more time for you to comment in more important places like the newly created WP:CNB (which I just learned about from iridescent's comment, and which seems quite promising—I've watchlisted it). But as I said it's obviously up to you, I was just looking for a way to defuse the situation at ANI, which perhaps has now run its course. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Message

I am away on business for a while. Thanks for the messages. Briefly, I see nothing wrong with talking to those who provide the funds that keep Wikipedia going, to persuade them that there are things that are seriously wrong. This episode is evidence of that. As I said before, it is no different to the way that a company is bought out and the existing management fired. Those who fund Wikipedia expect to see it managed well, and they are not seeing any of that, at the moment. We are trying to build a comprehensive and accurate reference source, as I have always said. I don't want to destroy Wikipedia, and I think Wikipedia is a Good Thing. Rest assured. But change is needed. Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's build a comprehensive reference work

And it is criminal that there is no page on Johann Andreas Streicher by the way. What are you all doing? Get to work. Peter Damian (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a really strange coincidence. I was viewing random articles on the German wiki, came across a piano maker named Conrad Graf, created that article here... which led me to Streicher. I checked what linked to it and found your message. If it's criminal that the article didn't exist, I'm sure you can do much more with the article I created. You see, I have the occasional odd hobby of transferring articles across wikis despite being monolingual. :) Outriggr (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sum of Logic

I have trouble believing that we should promote a Wiki as the only on-line source of "an important version" of a text.-- The Red Pen of Doom 06:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Since when are footnotes not recommended for content? The chapter listings are not the only claims in the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 06:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

OK I have removed the claim about the 15c nominalists which in the original version and which I cannot source. The chapter headings are available in Boehner, which I will reference. Peter Damian (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Philotheus Boehner

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Philotheus Boehner, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Unreferenced, unable to establish notability.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. WWGB (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Your note on the RfA

Hi. Just a heads-up that I removed your notice about the Philotheus Boehner deletion from the RfA of User:Davemeistermoab because it has nothing to do with that RfA and will only add to the drama already surrounding you. No sense in going there. (And this removal is absolutely not meant to be a comment on your RfA !voting rationales!). Regards. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 12:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This should probably be moved to the talk page before a Crat comes by and decides to make trouble over it. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

3RR?

You know if you're blocked for 3RR violation, that would just make you "unwise". If you revert one more time, you're just giving a good reason for admins to block you. Please be calm, regards.--Caspian blue 15:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm VERY VERY ANGRY. How can you expect me to be calm? Peter Damian (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Peter, I understand your frustration, but I think it would be best for you to step back for a few minutes and perhaps have a cup of tea or something. Remember that it's only a website. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, I think Philotheus Boehner is a fine contribution to the project; not sure why you're trying to remove it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no wish to get into a conflict with you, but you do not have a right to withdraw a page from Wikipedia in these circumstances. You released it under the GFDL, a release which you may not revoke. Please stop; edit warring isn't likely to accomplish anything other than get you blocked. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You can request that an article be withdrawn, but Wikipedia is not under an obligation to abide by your request, considering that you gave it irrevocable permission to use the article when you submitted it. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed it because it was unfinished (and still is). Boehner deserves a full article. I have no desire to work on it in the present circumstances. Peter Damian (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That is unfortunate. Hopefully you will regain such a desire in the future. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Under construction

Hello, Peter. I can understand the frustration that can come when well-meaning editors prod articles that are in the midst of being written or expanded. I've found that tagging the top of the article with {{Under construction}} very early in the process can prevent most of the quick taggings done by editors who are not experts in the field. I have found that that template, together with {{Inuse}}, can prevent a lot of frustration on all sides. Thank you, -- Avi (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but if you look at the history of Epistemic theory of miracles, that was no use. Surely anyone reading the article, which already stated that Boehner was a prestigious medievalist, first director of the Franciscan Institute, and indirectly responsible for Bonaventura College becoming a university, should have spotted that. But thanks for your concern. Peter Damian (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

A further alternative is to start articles in userspace. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Stifle, I'd rather not use Peter's page as a bullietn board, but there is no need to start articles in userspace. Unless the article is so obviously spam or cruft or one of the speedies (no ASSERTION of notability), a few days grace period should be the norm. This article had the assertion of notability; whether or not the assertion was true is a separate issue (and it seems to me that the assertion is true) but it was not a speedy, not cruft, not spam, and should have been given more than three minutes before being prodded. -- Avi (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Boehner is a giant in the world of medieval philosophy, and deserves at least as much space as Britney Spears. I only noticed today that there was, astonishingly, no article about him. To have the article 'PRODDed' within three minutes, with the added irony of my trying to address the problem of RfA producing too many uninformed and uneducated adminstrators (sorry, but true), was really too much. Peter Damian (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have however removed this as Boehner was hardly a theologian. He was a scholar of medieval philosophy, mostly, a translator and, as the article notes, his great work was the critical edition of Ockham's Summa Logicae. Peter Damian (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Then you may wish to look at the options under {{philosophy}} and correct the tags on the articles talk page; I believe I made the same error there too. Sorry. -- Avi (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you although as someone suggested I probably will have a cup of tea instead. Peter Damian (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sandboxes

Hey Peter, I know it's frustrating getting stuff tagged as a veteran editor, especially one who isn't going to be putting some nonsensical crap up. The earliest history of Epistemic theory of miracles is shameful in that regard, but Stifle was admonished at the time to not do that anymore (I hope he isn't, or that would be a problem). You don't have to draft in userspace, but please, check out User:Rootology/Sandboxes and what I got linked there. In particular, the history on #2 and the logs on #7. I drafted Beecher's Handmade Cheese entirely there, and then just hit the move button when it was ready. I think, the history is a little mixed up there and it was some time ago, but you should get the drift. This will let you work at your own pace in relative privacy until you're ready to go live, and you won't have to even deal with any of the things concerning to you. Just a suggestion... rootology (C)(T) 15:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

External links

Two editors have raised concerns about the use of a personal website as an external link for an article. You might provide a little bit more reason for returning it other than being unsure why they removed it in the first place. There are other ways of determining whether something is suitable, why not try for a third opinion or the reliable sources noticeboard? Alastairward (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you a link for your claim (on my talk page)? Alastairward (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I found it also interesting to have a look at this article too. It seems there is also a consensus that such links should at best be treated on a case by case basis. Do you have any proof that this site is accurate other than your word? Alastairward (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, what leaves this as unacceptable over your own site? Alastairward (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

RfA comment

Hi, like I said I've been away, but also don't have much time. I agree with you, and my comment was mainly an answer to Gwen's concerns, but I didn't want to insert it half way through a discussion. I was hoping S' answer would sway me, but it hasn't. (btw, Gwen and I are apparently the same person - check my SPI record!) I've not had chance to look into people or things very deeply, but I don't want you to get the wrong impression. Best, Verbal chat 23:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I'm not sure what you're getting at with this comment. Obviously you think something is wrong with my support rationale, but that's about all I've been able to figure out. Could you please clarify? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

My objection is that your rationale was professedly ignorant of the subject matter. E.g. Ayn Rand. Apologies if I misunderstood your point. I sometimes do misunderstand. Peter Damian (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah, that's exactly what I said in my rationale: I specifically said that I don't care about subject matter, I care about the user's knowledge of policy and dedication to the project. Everyone has content disagreements; what matters is whether the user will make a good administrator, not whether they agree with me on some article or another. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If you look at my most recent comments, you will see it is precisely his interpretation of policy that I have a difficulty with. Peter Damian (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you

really say I'd resort to violence? You have to be joking. Law _{type! snype?} 12:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI is here. Law _{type! snype?} 12:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not say that. I said you came across to me that way. I find your whole tone threatening and disturbing. Peter Damian (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Request

I was categorizing some stuff and ran across Doctor of Practical Theology, which seems like something you could ref in your sleep. Best. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It struck me as cruft at first but perhaps not - I'll have a look, thanks Peter Damian (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

OK it's not cruft, but it needs redirecting to Practical Theology and it should clearly be merged with Pastoral care. There is a good deal more in terms of history and referencing. I will do this some time. Peter Damian (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahh good. I think I am going to take a weedwacker to Category:Doctoral degrees as I cannot figure out the difference between Engineering Doctorate and Doctor of Engineering. MBisanz ^talk 12:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Association of Established Editors

I'm sorry to see you lost faith in this proposal, I found this idea quite compelling and I would endorse the creation of this association if you have set it up. There are also other invited editors trying to respond to your invitations, finding the proposal has ended. If you simply close this proposal because of your time or other limitations, I would be happy to maintain the association and defend its validity on Wikipedia.

Note: The RfC discussions on self-electing groups are not targeted at you and this association, it's only mentioning the association as an example of a self-electing group (i.e. association). --98.154.26.247 (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

OK I see a few people left some messages. I have replaced the pages, but I will try to remain disengaged as the personal attacks and venom became too much. I will support anyone who wants to continue it. Peter Damian (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Now has its own place here Wikipedia:AEE.Peter Damian (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this association and I propose to continue this organization with major changes and reforms. I can see one of your reason that you established this association is to correspond to the creation of Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development. I propose to open this association to everyone here in Wikipedia, in order to avoid the controversy of it being an elitist organization (or, by some people are saying, a cabot). So to achieve this the association must abolish the membership qualifications guidelines completely. Other changes can be later discussed. You don't have to coordinate the group if you don't want to, but you can give some opinions since you're the original starter of this association. If you support my ideas or have opinions on it please don't hesitate to respond, as the page is at risk of being deleted. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:AEE

Wikipedia:AEE, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:AEE and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:AEE during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 21:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Peter Damian. You have new messages at S Marshall's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Real life

I'm a student IRL, which explains my constantly aggressive nature towards things that don't sit well with me. Apologies for this - I'm quite nice in reality. I guess xkcd has got me again on that front. As for Twitter, I started contributing to that article because I didn't much like the service, so wouldn't be bias and fill it with rubbish. Since I started editing, I've helped get it up to Good article class and led a slightly premature attempt at Featured article. It's funny really, I've actually grown to like the service through what I've learnt from editing here. What do you do IRL? It's undoubtedly more interesting than me =P Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 21:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Messages

Hello, Peter Damian. You have new messages at GrooveDog's talk page.
Message added 21:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your "message" on my talk page

WTF was that all about? – ukexpat (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I also received one stating that I was unfair to experts. Check my usertalk. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 21:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Castle

I miss your user page with The Castle at the top. It was quite to the point. -- So how are we going to attract and keep experts? I think it's our most pressing problem, as we've reached the point in project development where the core articles have grown past the point where (in my admittedly unpopular opinion) amateurs can usefully contribute. Maybe it is Sisyphean: your WR avatar says it all. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Page restored. The obloquy and vilification now being heaped on experts at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:AEE has quite astounded me. I knew they were second-class citizens and a sort of underclass but this is beyond reason. Thanks for you kindly comments though it makes it all worth it (almost) Peter Damian (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The risk of self-chosen groups

I agree with your assessment of what is wrong with WP, but I don't like your idea of an invite-only established editors club at all, since I think there is a large risk that it would be a source of bad forms of groupthink (e.g., neoclassical economists blackballing post-Keynesians, &c), and the kind of activism you see the group engaging in would make both the groupthink and its effects worse.

I'm not sure what a good approach to improving things would be, but I think the wikiprojects should be a big part of it. Isn't it best to keep the politics of defending expertise close to where the expertise is exercised?

I wouldn't object to an association where there was a mechanical criterion for acceptance. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The irony is that some years ago I proposed giving some standing to those with academic credentials, on the lines of Citizendium. This was naturally howled down with a lynch mob formed and ready. I exited in haste and thought about it for a year or two, and came up with a more 'community' friendly view. Here, you don't have to have any external credentials but you do have to have proved you can work with the 'community' and you do have to have made a commitment to the Wikipedia way of working for some time. This means that effectively anyone can be an established editor. But without academic credentials, which are mechanical, how do you make the judgment that someone has been editing Wikipedia in a totally impartial way? Peter Damian (talk) 05:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the wrong place to make the judgement is at admission to the group. With admins, I don't think there is much wrong with the RfA process, since one cannot tell in advance who is at risk of corruption through exercising power. The problem is the ineffectiveness of the mechanisms for ejecting those who are shown to be unfit.

Consider the following purely mechanical criterion for AEE acceptance: the candidate declares (i) a field of interest, (ii) that they have made 1000 content edits (i.e., not categorisation or other gnomish edits) to articles within the scope of that field, (iii) that these edits are broadly of the appropriate standard of quality, and further (iv) that they will conscientiously uphold high standards of content quality and accountability for their content. If the field is appropriate, and the requisite number of content edits have been performed, then the candidate is in regardless of the quality of the edits; i.e., only claims (i)&(ii) are criteria for admission, and there up to the point where they are seen as mechanically verifiable — (iii) & (iv) are, if you like, oaths. The sting is that any other member whose field of interest substantially overlaps with the successful candidate editor's, and who maintains the editor is subverting the quality of their field, can challenge the successful candidate on the truthfulness of their declaration. It could even be a duel, if we like the dramatic chivalrous metaphor, where the loser is either reprimanded or expelled. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

OK I like this. In summary (A) a mechanical criterion (B) some form of pledge or oath (C) a power of veto or 'blackball' by other members. Do you not see a problem with (C), though? Peter Damian (talk) 08:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly (C) is a risk, a constitutional risk if you like. This particular risk could be ameliorated by skipping having an effective, formal ostracism process, and have a more substantial entry test. But mechanical and semi-mechanical tests on edits are gameable, trust metric analyses are difficult to construct, and opinion-based admissions criteria encourage groupthink. Can there be a way out of constitutional risk? I guess that the risk that you don't actually like any AEE that you end up with on any membership criterion is quite high. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

RS etc.

You might find this discussion interesting enough to comment on, as well as the section below it. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. Peter Damian (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet another

Peter, please have a look at Myke Cuthbert's essay here. You (and me, and a handful of others you know) are not the only ones wanting change.

There's a lot of ideas in the air right now. More than at any time since I've been editing, which is going on six years. Maybe something good will come of all this. I think there are enough true content editors who care about the project, and want reform, that we have at least a fighting chance. You probably know this line from Kafka, right (I think it's in the Diaries somewhere): "every revolution eventually evaporates, and is replaced by the slime of a new bureacracy." Well, here we are. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What are they afraid of?

God, the panicked response to the AEE is just nuts. Deleting an idea one disagrees with... it makes me wonder just what people are afraid of. TallNapoleon (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A note

Just a note in reference to something you said somewhere else - being blocked is painful, especially since blocks are used to justify destroying various improvements. I also distrust anyone who says that we are all equal or that we have rights. No, we are not equal. Yes, things can happen at a whim. No, remedies don't always happen and sometimes take forever if they do happen. Yes, rights are strictly only that which you can defend, and sometimes you need to take certain measures to defend your ability to continue editing here. I know from personal experience that I had to make a lot of deals with a lot of people to get through the worse three months that I had here. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe if you look at my comments at Wikipedia Review that they were often favourable to you. Peter Damian (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I tend not to pay attention to comments either positive or negative in general. I also tend not to pay too much attention to history either. Such things seem to be more appropriate to social atmospheres and real society. This is work after all. Unlike most people, I tend to prefer the setting of a bar in order to deal with the rest. But yeah, as I stated above, we have no rights so someone with a contrary belief can just use their power to distract from the real purpose of this place. If you have gotten to the end of this statement, I am probably just rambling at this point. Don't mind me. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Meteorological history of Tropical Storm Allison

It seems you're not very fond of this page. Care to list your concerns, so I can improve the article? Thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course. Peter Damian (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Some thoughts. It has an overly technical tone for an encyclopedia aimed at a general audience. Indeed, it is mostly incomprehensible, due to obviously technical terms which are not explained, and which will be unintelligible to the general reader. For example

• "observations showed an elongated circulation with a poorly defined center, which had reformed closer to the deep convection".
• "the cold-core nature of the center"
• "A low-level circulation developed on June 2"
• "satellite and radar imagery show the system was well-organized"
• "were then absorbed by the frontal boundary"

Also, not many of these details will be of interest to the general reader. There is already the article Tropical Storm Allison. Is this really necessary? At least you should explain the technical terms or rephrase it in a way that makes it intelligible.Peter Damian (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello, Peter Damian. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Majorly talk 22:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're serious about getting something done, RfC or admin noticeboard seem to be the way to go; given how long ago this was or may have been an issue, it seems wise to get some additional opinions on whether it remains an issue before you go charging in like the cavalry. Given the previous history between you and FT2, your current approach seems to me to be in very poor form. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

May I ask how this alternate account is in violation of our sock puppet policies for that time? May I also ask how edits from that long ago are relevant today? For that matter, why do you even think the accounts are connected? Chillum 23:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for asking you that, I was not aware of the arbcom ruling against you speaking of FT2 on wiki when I asked. I withdraw the question and urge you not to violate the ruling. Chillum 23:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)