Funny, but not as funny as if it were true. PP is when you're competent and get promoted to something you suck at; Peter's suggestion is the other way around. Sorry to nitpick.
If someone is succeeding as a programmer, that says nothing about how they'll do as a manager. Therefore pushing for that promotion is a good way to wind up getting promoted to something you such at. Which is the Peter Principle at work.
Are we failing on ambiguity here? If by "it" you mean "the peter principle", then yes I think it's very true.
But here, by assumption, the programmer is not competent (I doubt this is so, but that was the context) and petercooper's suggestion -- a good one -- was to consider getting promoted into a perhaps more suitable position. That's the inverse of PP.
But the OP's contention is that he isn't a very good programmer, while some of the qualities he says he has sound like they'd be good for somebody in an oversight role.
You seem like a prime candidate for promotion to management or a more analytical role. Is this a possibility or something you can work toward?