Difference between revisions of "Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Peter Damian Evidence"

MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Friday May 10, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 26: Line 26:
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_Logic Definitions of Logic]
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_Logic Definitions of Logic]
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_form Logical form]  Viewed [http://stats.grok.se/en/200802/Logical_form 450] times in February 2008.
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_form Logical form]  Viewed [http://stats.grok.se/en/200802/Logical_form 450] times in February 2008.
−
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_contradiction Principle of contradiction]
+
* '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_contradiction Principle of contradiction]'''
 +
* '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_logic History of logic]'''
  
 
=== Philosophy and Logic ===
 
=== Philosophy and Logic ===

Revision as of 10:38, 20 September 2008

Evidence for the Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee (September 2008)

Peter Damian Background

Mathematics, logic and set theory

Philosophy and Logic

Medieval philosophy and logic

Aristotle

Biographies

Gospel music

Architecture

Argument

My argument for unblocking is simple, as follows.

  • Principled and good-faith criticism of another person is not the same thing as a personal attack or harassment.
  • My criticism of the editor called FT2 has been principled and in good faith. My actions should not therefore be labelled as 'harassment'.

The major premiss is clear. Everyone accepts that fair and principled criticism of another editor's action is essential to the continued survival of the Wikipedia project. To demonstrate the minor premiss, it will be necessary to discuss and criticise some of FT2's contributions to the Wikipedia project, and to see how the blocks of Peter Damian are connected with this.

My concerns about Wikipedia

I still remain deeply committed to the project. I still teach as part of my job, I love teaching and I love the idea of communicating difficult ideas about intellectual history in a plain and jargon-free way. Wikipedia is a brilliant idea and in some ways it works very well. But it is plagued by a number of problems that the administration has failed to address


1. The way that a narrow-minded conception of civility is being used as a weapon against good editors. This is intimately connected with the rise of a apparatchik class of untalented but politically adept editors who have hijacked the project, and who specialise in the blocking or banning of editors who do not support the party line.

It is no coincidence that my first block ever, four years since I began editing, was over my strongly-worded complaints over the departure of the great editor Worldtraveller, because of a spectacularly ill-judged block (Ref: WT complained to an administrator that "Your continued rudeness and failure to remotely discuss your controversial administrative actions just confirms for me that you are a terrible administrator. Whatever I can do to get your administrative tools taken away from you, I will do. Worldtraveller 20:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC). [1]. He was blocked for this.

2. The plague of cruft and promotional material and crank theories. Include in the latter category the articles on 'alternative sexuality'.

The articles on Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia] and Pederasty are perfect examples of the latter.

Now these subjects [i]should[/i] be dealt with. But dealt with carefully. They should engage with the problem that there is little academic research on the subject, and that almost any theory about it is bound to be speculation. For example, the thesis that the almost universal repulsion against bestialism and man-boy sex is a comparatively modern phenomenon in human history, and that the modern view is a direct result of Judaeo-Christian culture. Supposedly before that most human cultures and societies had a benevolent and supportive attitude to such proclivities. The thesis was proposed (re pedophilia) by Warren Johansson and William Percy (and adopted enthusiastically by NAMBLA), and has an obvious motive: to make a minority seem persecuted, fits snugly into the liberal-left hatred of the church. But it is mere speculation, and there is plenty of evidence against it. An article on the subject of bestiality, for instance, should stick to broad statistics, medical views, carefully balanced views of ethicists, and should avoid academic research that is now known to be flawed or slanted. Anything else is pure original research, and does not belong on the project.

Another example is Neurolinguistic programming. This falls in between the areas of crank psychology and promotional material


Criticism of FT2

The problem with FT2 that combines all the defects into one: the untalented apparatchik with a penchant for blocking decent content contributors, and the kind of promoter of crank material and cruft that I have been battling en-wiki for more than five years. He seems to me to embody everything that is bad about the project and which needs fixing, and yet I am the one who gets banned when I make complaints (OK, strongly-worded complaints) about his behaviour.

I first came into contact with FT2 in the early part of 2007. A group of editors on the philosophy pages were concerned about a user (who has since been blocked for 2 years. FT2 was called upon to mediate. This process, which should have been simply a matter of blocking the offender, was an interminably drawn-out affair, protracted by FT2's insistence that every point of view should be represented. This was incorrect. An approach to the history and characterisation of philosophy should be defined by the reliable secondary source material. This incident was instrumental in causing a good editor (the Oxford philosopher and Wikipedia administrator Mel Etitis) to leave the project for good. See his perfectly incivil, but accurate comments about this editor.

This prompted me to look at FT2's edit history, where I soon found (in early 2007, note) his work on bestiality and neurolinguistic programming. I did not bring this up at the time because he was merely another editor, and I had no idea of the immense power that he was beginning to acquire on the project. The problems with his approach to the project are as follows:

  • He has no real knowledge of the subjects he edits, although he claims to have it.
  • He does not really understand the basics of neutral editing (although he claims to understand). He cites erotic websites, self-published sources. He quotes authors like Nancy Friday, whose work is pure pulp fiction.
  • He does not understand the principles of peer review. He imagines the fact that someone is published in the field, or has a doctorate, or is well-known, or has had their writings vetted by somebody else of note, is of itself sufficient to merit inclusion in an article. His understanding of the relative merits of publications is seriously flawed, e.g. in referencing journals like the one put out by The International Society for Anthrozoology (which is not a recognised journal). The following list suggests he is unable to distinguish between a training course and a university department.
  • He even misattributes material. An egregious example was when he claimed that the eminent linguist George Lakoff had endorsed Neurolinguistic programming - a significant and important fact if true, but had he bothered to check his source, he would have seen that the quote was not by Lakoff.
  • If this is pointed out or challenged, he indulges in long-winded denunciations in a way that is guaranteed to escalate hostility, or he conceals his lack of understanding behind a logorrheic thicket of words. This makes any reasonable discussion of the subject matter impossible. At the same time he assume an aura of righteousness by means of an interminable invocation of Wikipedia rules and tenets. He personalises all editorial discussion with interminable ad hominems
  • He seems to many to be driven by a personal agenda. One person said that his editorship "absolutely stinks of partiality and POV motivations", and that his claim of making an article "more neutral" is tantamount to watering it down to suit an agenda of which he himsel may not be fully conscious". Another said that he carries "an ideological stench wherever (s)he seems to go in "Wikipedia World". There is a clear advocacy and promotion in FT2s edits. Furthermore, the promotion and advocacy is unsophisticated and lazy in the sense that it is apparently exlusively based on Google. FT2's edits are replete with unsubstantiated opinion -- the "NLP and Science" article is a particularly egregious example of this tendency, it is a mass of unsubstantiated verbiage"[2].
  • This manner seems almost deliberately calculated to annoy and infuriate editors with an academic background. His pernicious insistence on absurd and trivialised standards of 'civility' to the exclusion of all editorial or content determined material, is having a marked and deleterious effect on the project.

Combined with the important position he holds on Wikipedia, and the reverential awe in which he is held by less knowledgeable and more impressionable administrators, FT2 exercises a malignant and pernicious influence on the encyclopedia. He has driven off a stream of excellent and well-qualified editors. He has gathered around him a group of administrators who hold him in high esteem for his supposed impartiality and neutrality, and who will block upon a single word from him.

I know these criticisms are harsh. But they are not personal. I have no thoughts or interest about the person who is FT2 in real life. My criticism is directed against FT2 the editor and administrator and official of Wikipedia.

Blocks of Peter Damian

Relevant accounts and logs

Damian block logs:

Relevant blocks:

  • 4 December 2007 Radiant! (Smear campaign)
  • 6 December 2007 WJBscribe (legal threat)
  • 29 June 2008 Ryan Postlethwaite (Harassment)
  • 13 August 2008 (MBisanz - personal attack or harassment)
  • 01:45, 31 August 2008 by Coren (incivility)
  • 23:11, 6 September 2008 by Jimbo Wales (harassment)

4 December 2007

My interest in FT2 revived in December 2007 when I noticed that he was standing for the influential and important Arbitration Committee of Wikipedia. I placed a number of questions to the candidate, at least two of which were (with hindsight) were spectacularly misjudged.

08:31: "how many more good editors must be outraged to the point of quitting — how much more crap editing of flagship articles does it take" [3] This remark stands. I was referring to his actions in early 2007 which were instrumental in driving at least one editor from the philosophy project, and which seriously damaged relationships between the administrators and the philosophers.

08:35 - "For the record, can you give us your assurance that none of your activities would attract the attention of the authorities, and thus lead to your incarceration at Her Majesty's Pleasure, thus preventing your duties at Arbcom?" 4 December 2007 Your position as an animal lover

12:54 4 December 2007 - unusual themes

17:26 - I went too far and made a comment which I regret, but which I unreservedly apologised for: “OK I'm sorry for that. I will delete it and promise to make no further remarks of that sort if you remove the block. Please. edward 18:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

18:30 - A discussion which clarifies what my allegations actually are. “I repeat, these are nothing to do with his private life. He has made public statements in articles in WP that are POV, and intended to support human sex with animals. His private life is his own affair. His public statements are such as to bring disrepute to the project. edward (buckner) 18:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)” [Note that FT2 has alleged that this claim came 'much later'. This diff clearly disproves that].

18:54 - Scribe challenges me to produce any edits. “You have still yet to provide a single diff of these allegedly POV edits. WjBscribe 18:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)”

18:57 - I comment on the absence of diffs. “On the other talk page, someone disputed whether I have links. Yes I do. I had hoped we could do without that. I would be happy if FT2 withdrew, and we ended this. It is not in the interests of this project to escalate this.”

19:36 – Scribe unblocks (see block log below). I apologise again. “It was a momentary aberration”.

19:44 - Again I emphasise that my issue is what FT2 writes in Wikipedia, not what he may or may not do in his spare time. "The block has been removed, as I apologised. I leave it up to you as to guidelines on what to do with the page. It mostly consists of links, and some discussion. My point relates only to PUBLIC statements, on WP, made by the user in question". [Damian] 19:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

6 December 2007

The salient points of this block are as follows

1. The terms of unblock included supplying diffs to edits by FT2 - which edits were immediately oversighted. This was a gross breach of trust.

2. The final reason for the block was 'legal threat', even though there never was a legal threat.

3. I have never accused FT2 of practising zoophilia. My issue with this editor was (and remains) his biased and slanted editing aimed at normalising the practice of bestiality, and his arbitrarily blocking or banning of editors who aimed at restoring NPOV to the articles on this subject.

20:00 Wednesday 5 December - a dialogue with Scribe [4] which shows that my apologies about my remarks during the campaign, my offers of blanking page and so on, were accepted, Berry and others. Postlethwaite was mildly reproved for having escalated the situation (which he certainly did – “you're cruising for block No.2”). Berry “I don't think threatening more blocks here is wise. [Damian] is not a troll, he is a longstanding solid contributor in good standing.”

20:17 I ask for help from Giano - this part contains the now infamous remark "I have contacted the relevant organisations. " That evening I made the blog post which referenced the Zoophilia article. Note this post did not mention FT2 by name - it simply criticised the extreme bias that I saw in the article.

On Thursday 6 December the Yogacara network replicates the blog Thu, 2007-12-06 09:16. This was the turning point in the whole affair. The Yocagara network simply copies my blog (which is mostly about philosophy and medieval logic) every day, so that others can read it. I was not aware of this at the time. I had posted about the elections - not mentioning FT2 by name - and, at Scribes request, took a morning off work to delete the post and ask Veggieboards to remove a thread. I strike through my vote in the elections. I retire from Wikipedia. My talk page for 13:15 shows me apologising to Ryan Postlethwaite under duress. “Ok I no longer plan to pursue in any context. You win.” This caused some puzzlement, the reason was WP:IP. I deny ever having made a legal threat.

The ANI page shows clearly the unblock was made by Postlethwaite (13:15 UTC), but then reapplied by Scribe. The chronology is important, and should be read with the block log showing Scribe blocks at 14:53 for "serious off-wiki campaign of harassment and attacks against another editor" even though I had removed everything and had made promises. Scribe initially accepted that the blog post had been deleted, but then the wretched Yogacara network replicated it (it shortly disappeared as part of the replication process, but Scribe refused to believe this was an accident).

On Saturday 8 December the two Zoophilia edits were oversighted. See here for details on what the edits contained, and here for some of the evidence that they were oversighted.

This was a very bad result. Aside from fixing the outcome, it also left me with a very unfair black mark of "harassing" FT2, and left me with a de facto shoot-on-sight probation, administered by the same crowd of gullible administrators who have gathered round FT2. These have been indefinitely blocking me any time he challenges FT2's administrative actions surrounding the articles in question, each time citing the last bad block as the reason for the new one.


29 June 2008

Ryan Postlethwaite (Harassment)

13 August 2008

(MBiszanz - personal attack or harassment)

31 August 2008

by Coren (incivility)

6 September 2008

  • by Jimbo Wales (harassment)
Retrieved from "https://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View/Peter_Damian_Evidence&oldid=70654"