Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Peter Damian Evidence

MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Wednesday November 27, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to search

Evidence for the Arbitration Committee

This page is the evidence presented by Wikipedia editor Peter Damian (and his previous accounts) to the Wikipedia Arbitration committee in order to contest the community ban placed upon him by Jimmy Wales on 6 September 2008 [4]. The ban was for an alleged "history of harassment, and off-site attacks" against the Wikipedia administrator known as FT2.

Defence. Principled and good-faith criticism of another person is not the same thing as a personal attack or harassment. Everyone accepts that fair and principled criticism of another editor's action is essential to the continued survival of the Wikipedia project. But the evidence below shows that my criticism of the editor called FT2 has been principled and in good faith. My actions should not therefore be labelled as 'harassment'.

Summary. The sections below contain detailed evidence in the form of 'diffs' (time-dated edits to the Encyclopedia). First, I present a list of the articles I have written (or been the main contributor to) since June 2003. This shows beyond reasonable doubt that I have been a good-faith contributor to the 'mainspace' (article space) of Wikipedia over a long period. I have never had a block for an 'edit war' over an article, and nearly all my articles have stayed in their original form to the present date (September 2008).

In the section concerns about Wikipedia I present the issues that I feel are dividing the project. The first problem is the rise of an administrative 'class' in Wikipedia whose priority has shifted from writing an encyclopedia to the blocking of vandals and abusive 'sockpuppets' (multiple accounts). While they are a solution to a real problem (vandalism caused by the lack of editorial vetting) they have become a Frankenstein's monster that is almost destroying the project (which is to write an encylopedia). The second problem that afflicts Wikipedia is the proliferation of 'cruft' and of crank material. (Cruft is non-encyclopedic, unsourced material that is placed in the encyclopedia for financial gain, since Wikipedia gets a high or top ranking in most search engines, crank material is non-encyclopedic, and unsourced).

In the section Criticism of FT2 I argue that FT2's contributions to the Wikipedia project are net negative. He or she is the leader of the adminstrative 'security force' whose main function has been subverted to the blocking or banning of genuinely good editors (point one), and he is also responsible for much cruft-ish and cranky material in his own right.

Finally, the section Blocks of Peter Damian shows how my blocks (and now the ban) are the direct result of my good faith and principled criticism of FT2's administrative actions in the project. A community ban is therefore completely disproportionate.

The Arbitration Committee (September 2008)


Peter Damian Background

The following summarises the articles to which I have made significant contributions in my time at Wikipedia. The articles in bold are those to which I was the main contributor, and whose subject is important or notable (e.g. History of logic, which had not been covered properly until 2008). My main area of expertise is in Anglo-American analytic philosophy (I graduated from a top-class British university in the 1970's, did my PhD there, and taught there until the late 1980's. I have published in a number of good quality journals, and continue to work and publish, although I no longer teach). I also have an interest in medieval philosophy, and set theory and mathematics. My contributions to the project mostly reflect these specialisms.

Mathematics, logic and set theory

Philosophy and Logic

Medieval philosophy and logic

Aristotle

Biographies

Gospel music

Architecture

My concerns about Wikipedia

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

First, the shifting of priorities in Wikipedia from writing an encyclopedia, to the blocking of 'vandals'. This is connected with the rise of a apparatchik class of politically adept editors who do not work in article space at all, except to revert vandalism. These administrators are obsessed with a narrow-minded conception of civility, and they tend to regard good-faith but strongly-worded objections as a form of vandalism. 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[1].

Second, by a plague of cruft, promotional and crank material on an almost Biblical scale. I include in the latter (crank)category the rash of articles on 'alternative sexuality', for example the atrocious Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia and Pederasty are excellent examples of the latter. Now these subjects should certainly be dealt with in an encyclopedia. But dealt with carefully. They should engage with the problem that there is little mainstream academic research on such subject, and that almost any theory about it is bound to be speculation. [2]. 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 is that he combines both of the defects above: the untalented apparatchik with a penchant for blocking decent but abrasive 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 embodies everything that is bad about the project and which needs fixing, 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[3]). He cites websites and self-published sources. One academic said that "his promotion and advocacy is unsophisticated and lazy in the sense that it is apparently exlusively based on Google". 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 persistently misattributes material. For example, 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 an impenetrable thicket of words. This makes any reasonable discussion of the subject matter impossible. At the same time he assumes an aura of righteousness by means of his interminable invocation of Wikipedia rules and tenets. He tends personalises all editorial discussion with ad hominem attacks.
  • 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.
  • His edits are replete with unsubstantiated opinion. One editor said that 'the "NLP and Science" article is a mass of unsubstantiated verbiage" [4].
  • His manner seems almost deliberately calculated to annoy and infuriate editors with an academic background. His 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 somewhat 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

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.

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.

My interest in him 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.

BLOCK NUMBER ONE 4 December 2007

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" [7] 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)

BLOCK NUMBER TWO 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.

13:31 Concern about anti-scientific bias

13:37: Concern about "scientific scepticism"

18:32 FT2 bullying

20:00 Wednesday 5 December - a dialogue with Scribe [8] 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.

BLOCK NUMBER THREE 29 June 2008

I returned to editing in May 2008 after my block had been overturned. People should perhaps ask themselves why there had been no attempt at arbitration. My assumption was that the whole matter was too embarrassing to discuss in public. And that the whole thing could be swept under the carpet by inviting me back to edit quietly. Apart from a rude and unpleasant message that FT2 left on my talk page, no conditions were demanded. With hindsight, it was a mistake to accept this situation. Admins were left with the impression that severe conditions had been set on my activities, I was under the impression that FT2 was under some kind of secret censure or prohibition by the Arbitration Committee, or Wales.

This was the first of the drive-by blocks. I had been working with a good editor (Phdarts) who had been doing some good work on the Pederasty page. I cover the whole aspect of pedophile editing in my articleWikipaedophilia. The salient points are as follows. User Phdarts contributed to Wikipedia from 19 May 2008 to 29 June 2008, making 380 edits in all. His work, mostly on the Pederasty article was of consistently high standard: well written, well-sourced, and his comments on talk pages are both amusing and pertinent. For example, he points out that 'Pederasty', as used in the modern paedophile liberation movement, is a neologism popularised by NAMBLA [9]. He wittily comments "I did find it rather odd that modern pederasty would be different from pederasty"[10]. He rightly says that a pederasty article should not focus so much on times when slaves could not complain about pederasty, or when pedophiles could marry their 7 year old niece. [11]. He cites recent research showing a clear association between pedophilia and child pornography. "The production, possession, and distribution of child pornography are deeply interwoven in the activities of pedophiles, pederasts, and those involved in rings, sexual trafficking, child prostitution, and, more recently, the Internet" (Crosson-Tower 2007). Pederasts do not only break the law when they abuse children, they also break the law by creating and collecting child pornography. Thats a fact that requires inclusion in this pederasty article. [12]

The inclusion of such well-sourced material was fiercely resisted by a certain group of editors, one of whom complained "that matters have gone beyond personal intervention - however well-authenticated - and now demand third-party intervention (as before). [13]. Phdarts was then blocked by fT2

I complained on FT2's talk page that "The effect is to support the efforts of paedophiles, isn't it? PHD is an exceptionally good editor and has a strong scientific knowledge of the subject. Why was he banned in the first place? Why this secrecy? [Peter Damian] 09:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC).

BLOCK NUMBER FOUR 13 August 2008

Contributions up to 13 for August 2008.

In an even more absurd incident, I was blocked "for personal attack or harassment" when I nominated one of FT2's idiosyncratic amateur psychology articles for deletion. The block review is here. According to the blocking admin, I was indefinitely blocked "for continuing the same harassment that resulted in [the] prior block". I was accused of 'continuing to go after FT2' simply because I had asked him politely if he had a conflict of interest [5]. I was also accused of editing pedophilia articles, which was strange indeed.

Sorry, what has the pedophilia bit got to do with this? I objected to Jules Verne being labelled a pedophile, and to several of the strange claims being made in the 'historical couples' article - remember my initial involvement in the pedophile stuff was at the explicit request of user Thatcher. So are you are barking mad? Peter Damian (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

After near universal condemnation of the block it was lifted.

BLOCK NUMBER FIVE 31 August 2008

This block was not directly connected with FT2, but it was a nice example of how a vulnerable editor with a bad block history will soon be picked off by the trigger-happy. I was working on a new article, the epistemic theory of miracles. You can see it is a nicely finished article now - and it covers an important area of eighteenth century thought about miracles (as well as the perennial question about how or whether pseudoscience can truly be distinguished from science).

I started the article at 11:22, 30 August 2008, placing an 'in use' sign at the top, as I had been advised to do after an earlier incident. After only 15 minutes, and with the in use sign still there, a very silly administrator nominated the article for deletion. I went mad of course as you can see here of course, and got even madder when this impertinent fellow placed these nasty messages and road signs on my talk page (I don't welcome this sort of thing at all, as anyone who knows me will tell), and so got even madder, in a Godwin sense. "Ponder why someone who wrote History of logic - the kind of article which would be in most standard encyclopedias, but was not in Wikipedia in decent form until two weeks ago - has been forced to leave the place. This cult of civility. A sort of moral panic, to blame the defects of the project on".[14]

This all earned me a block, which was very soon revoked, and the silly fellow apologised, and I apologised to him for my notoriously short temper. I have since been criticised for 'wanting the guy's head'. Well, as Giano said, "I cannot see how placing an AFD tag on an article that looks like this [15], without bothering to perform any basic checking can be anything other than trolling or monumantal ignorance. Whether the former or the latter should such an editor be running around loose on Wikipedia". [6] And in any case I was only asking the guy to apologise. It was I who had suffered, I was the one who had the road signs messing up my talk page, plus a template for deletion, plus a short block (and as noted I apologised back - I have a foul temper).

BLOCK NUMBER SIX - JIMBO STEPS IN - 6 September 2008

I was welcomed back, Even my enemies make peace, [16].

  • by Jimbo Wales (harassment)
  • FT2 attack thread on Wikipedia Review
  • More of this "Peter... Yes, you go back on your word. Repeatedly."
  • Wales Block
  • Damian says it is a police state
  • Damian complaint "These blocks look to me, rightly or wrongly, as a continuation of the campaign of victimisation he has been waging against me since I opposed his arbcom campaign. (And which he is neatly transposed, with administrative help, into the issue of my apparently victimising him)."
  • The last straw
  • Damian apology
  • Wales' reason for blocking "It's one thing to say "I don't agree with this decision, can we talk about it?" It is quite another thing to say things like 'All hail, chief of security and protector of the community, FT2. The bodies of the guilty and the innocent burn together with that sweet sickly smell of death, in the pit, in the morning.'"

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)

Civility

Recent discussion (September 2008

Giano on civility

FT2 personal attacks

On Giano

On Damian

Notes

  1. ^ 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. ^ 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
  3. ^ This edit by FT2 clearly shows the problem. FT2 accuses two academic researchers with "persistent cognitive inability to comprehend WP:NPOV and a dozen other standards". FT2 was instrumental in getting both of these experts banned. For the contributions of one of these, see here
  4. ^ [2]
  5. ^ there is a suspicion in the community, frequently voiced, that FT2 has a business involvement in NLP and that the many articles he has written on the subject are an attempt (a successful one indeed ) to put an academic gloss on this pseudoscientific gibberish by means of Wikipedia
  6. ^ Giano (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC) [3]
Retrieved from "https://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View/Peter_Damian_Evidence&oldid=70796"