Changes

This page is the evidence presented by Wikipedia editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_Damian Peter Damian] (and his previous accounts) to the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFAR Arbitration committee] in order to contest the community ban placed upon him by Jimmy Wales on 6 September 2008 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users&diff=236848985&oldid=236825048].  The ban was for an alleged "history of harassment, and off-site attacks" against the Wikipedia administrator known as ''FT2''.   

This page is the evidence presented by Wikipedia editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_Damian Peter Damian] (and his previous accounts) to the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFAR Arbitration committee] in order to contest the community ban placed upon him by Jimmy Wales on 6 September 2008 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users&diff=236848985&oldid=236825048].  The ban was for an alleged "history of harassment, and off-site attacks" against the Wikipedia administrator known as ''FT2''.   

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 clearly 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'.

'''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'.

The sections below contain detailed evidence in the form of 'diffs' (time-dated edits to the Encyclopedia).  I will summarise and connect them to the main argument here.  [[#Peter Damian Background | First]], I present a list of the articles I have written (or been the main contributor to) since June 2003.  This proves beyond 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).

'''Summary'''. The sections below contain detailed evidence in the form of 'diffs' (time-dated edits to the Encyclopedia).  I will summarise and connect them to the main argument here.  [[#Peter Damian Background | 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 on [[#My concerns about Wikipedia | my 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 who have little or no expertise in encyclopedia development, and whose main function is to block 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 theories.  (Cruft is material with no neutral informational content that is placed in the encyclopedia for financial gain, since Wikipedia gets a high or top ranking in most search engines, crank material is not supported by any reliable sources, per the Wikipedia definition of 'reliable source').

In the section on [[#My concerns about Wikipedia | my 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 who have little or no expertise in encyclopedia development, and whose main function is to block 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 crank 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 just cranky).

In the section [[#Criticism of FT2 | 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 and crank/fringe material in his own right.

In the section [[#Criticism of FT2 | 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 | 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.

Finally, the section [[#Blocks of Peter Damian | 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.