Changes

'''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'.

'''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).  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).

'''Summary'''. The sections below contain detailed evidence in the form of 'diffs' (time-dated edits to the Encyclopedia).  In overall summary: [[#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 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 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).