Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Peter Damian Evidence

MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Friday May 10, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to search

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.

Criticism of FT2

  • 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"[1].
  • 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.

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

08:31, 4 December 2007 - "how many more good editors must be outraged to the point of quitting — how much more crap editing of flagship articles does it take"

4 December 2007 - FT2's position as an animal lover, 12:54, 4 December 2007 - unusual themes, 17:26, 4 December 2007 - a remark now infamous, 18:00 4 December - clarifies the position - "His public statements are such as to bring disrepute to the project",

Was blocked. 19:34, 4 December 2007 Momentary aberration, 19:39, 4 December 2007 Thank you, 19:44, 4 December 2007relates only to PUBLIC statements

Scientific bias

13:37, 5 December 2007 scientific scepticism

December diffs FT2 bullying

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.


[u]Tuesday 4 December[/u]

The run-up to the block was my canvassing in the December Arbitration committee elections in Wikipedia. I regarded one the candidates, who operated under the pseudonym 'FT2' as a pernicious and destructive influence on the encyclopedia, because of his biased and slanting editing in the area of pseudoscience and alternative sexuality.

16:24 - I went too far and made [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Radiant!&diff=175736913&oldid=175736285]a comment[/url] 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 - [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Renamed_user_4&diff=175764532&oldid=175763938#FT2_and_lunacy]A discussion[/url] which clarifies what my allegations actually are. “I repeat, these are [b]nothing to do with his private life[/b]. He has made public statements in articles in WP that are POV, and intended to support human sex with animals. [b]His private life is his own affair[/b]. 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. “[b]You have still yet to provide a single diff of these allegedly POV edits[/b]. WjBscribe 18:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)”

18:57 - I comment on the absence of diffs. “On the other talk page, [b]someone disputed whether I have links. Yes I do. I had hoped we could do without that[/b]. 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 - [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=175765662]Again[/url] I emphasise that my issue is what FT2 writes in Wikipedia, not what he may or may not do in his spare time. [quote]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) [/quote]

[u]Wednesday 5 December[/u]

20:00 - [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WJBscribe&diff=next&oldid=176045631#Favour_asked]a dialogue with Scribe[/url]. This 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 [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II&diff=prev&oldid=176137862#Help]I ask for help from Giano[/url] on the evening of the 5 December - 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.

[u]Thursday 6 December[/u]

The Yogacara network [url=http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:zD0rFBUv_iYJ:www.yogacara.net/node/21699+wikibestia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk]replicates[/url] the blog Thu, 2007-12-06 09:16.

I take a morning off work to delete the blog post and ask Veggieboards to remove a thread. I [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/FT2&diff=prev&oldid=176111122]strike through[/url] my vote in the elections. I retire from Wikipedia. My [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Renamed_user_4&diff=prev&oldid=176142092]talk page[/url] 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 legal threat.

The [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=176877164#User:Dbuckner]ANI page[/url] shows clearly the unblock was made by Postlethwaite (13:15 UTC), but then reapplied by Scribe. The chronology here is important, and to be read with the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&user=&page=User:Dbuckner]block log[/url] 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.

[u]Saturday 8 December[/u]

The two Zoophilia edits are oversighted. See [url=http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=17576&view=findpost&p=95284]here[/url] for details on what the edits contained, and [url=http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=17576&st=0&p=111850&#entry111850]here[/url] for some of the evidence that they were oversighted.

29 June 2008

Aside from fixing the outcome, it also left Peter 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.

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=70638"