Bishonen indef-blocks FT2, Holy crap, he hasn't been desysopped by Jimbo Options

[Anonymous editor]

Link

Noticeboard

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor:

[Moulton]

Sherlock Holmes was bored when he was not working on a case.

He was fascinated by a good mystery, and went about solving it methodically and scientifically.

It was up to Watson to manifest the hidden emotions of confusion and perplexity.

A good thinker displaces boredom by finding something to focus on that balances the fascination of a mystery with its complexity and it perplexity.

Now that FT2 is liberated from the banal liminal political drama associated with a rather pedestrian breach of expectations, perhaps he will put his analytical mind to higher-order problems than disciplining the incorrigible miscreants of IDCab.

[FT2]

All you have to do is to answer straight questions with straight answers.
(Snip)

Which is to completely disregard the context, that you are a user with a history of spurious claims. I don't have much interest in that. I forget the exact wording but there's a saying to the effect that the internet is full of 14 year olds with infinite time for whatever view they hold. You have to learn to not react to such things. For me, the matters you raise fall in that category no matter your real age; they were raised much more for the drama and point than from genuine good faith (sorry about using wiki-isms!). Had it been otherwise, you would not have acted as you did; the way you acted was not someone seeking answers, that was a rationalization that came far later. You have no information on my personal life, but you spent most of 2008 assuming it anyway and spreading your assumptions to others as your truths. Those actions get you and the drama-oriented "questions" you tried to raise for "political capital" purposes basically, ignored. What you might have asked, you asserted instead and I'm not usually inclined to engage a pissing match with someone who seems to have an endless supply of urea. Sorry. C'est la vie.

Question for you though. Do you really believe I've studied or been involved in most of what I edit in depth on? Do you believe I'm a lawyer because I authored a number of law articles and added in-depth on a range of others? A historian because I wrote on specialist historical matters? A psychologist because I wrote articles on 3 or 4 types of psychology and therapy? A movie fan because I wrote plot summaries for many movies? A weird sex practitioner because I worked on weird sex articles? A Christian or Jew because I wrote on judeo-christian articles? A politically involved person because I used to spend so much time on US political articles? That I know a thing about using Linux because I researched and authored the article on its start-up process? I don't think you really thought any of those things, did you?

Now that FT2 is liberated from the banal liminal political drama associated with a rather pedestrian breach of expectations, perhaps he will put his analytical mind to higher-order problems than disciplining the incorrigible miscreants of IDCab.

Oddly, Moulton, that's exactly been my thinking since stepping down. I'm now free to work on a couple of more structural dispute issues that need addressing and that I couldn't easily do "within arbcom". On the other hand I lose the option of arbcom decision-making (2009 style) if they are viable, as well. No idea if it'll happen or not - we'll see.

[Peter Damian]

Question for you though. Do you really believe I've studied or been involved in most of what I edit in depth on? Do you believe I'm a lawyer because I authored a number of law articles and added in-depth on a range of others?

No, and ditto the others. My claim was that certain of your edits were biased and slanted. Having been through many of your edits, I can confirm absolutely that there is no evidence whatsoever you have practised any of the things you talked about. I already said this while discussing the issue in private with WJBScribe last year. But you nonetheless put a positive and (to my mind) biased slant on many of those edits.

Many people will no doubt disagree about the bias (Giano already has). But the point is the authorship of the edits should not have been disguised as they were. If there was nothing wrong with them, why couldn't the community make its own mind up? Most people, including Thatcher, think that the community was liberal-minded enough to see past that.

My main concern at the time and afterwards was the Neurolinguistic programming articles, and I bitterly regret having brought the other matter up at all.

However, writing about bestiality, or whether it is now called, is perfectly legitimate. You may not like it, but coverage of the subject is lawful. There is not one scrap of evidence to suggest that FT2 was anything more than a writer on the subject, and had FT2 had better communication skills this matter would have been brought to a better conclusion months ago.

See my comment above. I will publish my correspondence with Scribe if necessary. My disagreement was with the way the edits seemed to promote the subject. That is a matter of editorial judgment, and also a matter relevant to the 2007 elections. I put forward the view (on a page which is now unfortunately also oversighted) that having someone promoting these views in this way on the Arbcom would turn out to be a public relations disaster, and would split the community.

A view which turned out to be entirely correct.

[edit] If it helps, can I apologise to FT2 here and now. I am sorry for the intemperate comments I made during the week of Dec 4 2007. I have an appalling temper and should know better. I bitterly regret all those remarks.

Nonetheless, I stick to my claim about 'positive promotion' of a controversial subject.

Should we not move on? There are other issues that have not been put to bed. If my private discussion with Scribe had not been completely derailed by the oversights, if Jimbo had bothered to reply to my complaints the following week, the whole matter would have been closed in a matter of days. The rest is history, of course.

It is Gerard and Jimbo whom the focus should be on now.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Giano]

Question for you though. Do you really believe I've studied or been involved in most of what I edit in depth on? Do you believe I'm a lawyer because I authored a number of law articles and added in-depth on a range of others?

No, and ditto the others. My claim was that certain of your edits were biased and slanted. Having been through many of your edits, I can confirm absolutely that there is no evidence whatsoever you have practised any of the things you talked about. I already said this while discussing the issue in private with WJBScribe last year. But you nonetheless put a positive and (to my mind) biased slant on many of those edits.

Many people will no doubt disagree about the bias (Giano already has). But the point is the authorship of the edits should not have been disguised as they were. If there was nothing wrong with them, why couldn't the community make its own mind up? Most people, including Thatcher, think that the community was liberal-minded enough to see past that.

My main concern at the time and afterwards was the Neurolinguistic programming articles, and I bitterly regret having brought the other matter up at all.

However, writing about bestiality, or whether it is now called, is perfectly legitimate. You may not like it, but coverage of the subject is lawful. There is not one scrap of evidence to suggest that FT2 was anything more than a writer on the subject, and had FT2 had better communication skills this matter would have been brought to a better conclusion months ago.

See my comment above. I will publish my correspondence with Scribe if necessary. My disagreement was with the way the edits seemed to promote the subject. That is a matter of editorial judgment, and also a matter relevant to the 2007 elections. I put forward the view (on a page which is now unfortunately also oversighted) that having someone promoting these views in this way on the Arbcom would turn out to be a public relations disaster, and would split the community.

A view which turned out to be entirely correct.

Your splitting hairs now, twisting and turning, and it befits you not. You issued a threat before the oversighting which was unacceptable. For that you should have been severely dealt with. That threat biased the way the whoe matter was subsequently handled.

Giano

[Peter Damian]

Your splitting hairs now, twisting and turning, and it befits you not. You issued a threat before the oversighting which was unacceptable. For that you should have been severely dealt with. That threat biased the way the whoe matter was subsequently handled.

Giano

See my apology just above. And remember I apologised and was unblocked two days before the oversights.

And I am not splitting hairs. The distinction between accusations about 'promotion' and 'practice' is about as important as you can get. It would be impossible to get any traction at all on difficult articles like pederasty and the like, if we ignore that distinction.

I have admitted the blame for the intemperate remarks. I apologise. I retract nothing else.

That threat biased the way the whoe matter was subsequently handled.

Of course, and another reason for regretting it. Any follow-up on the issues that concerned me - pseudoscience and all the rest - were thereafter treated as 'harrassment'.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Giano]

Your splitting hairs now, twisting and turning, and it befits you not. You issued a threat before the oversighting which was unacceptable. For that you should have been severely dealt with. That threat biased the way the whoe matter was subsequently handled.

Giano

See my apology just above. And remember I apologised and was unblocked two days before the oversights.

And I am not splitting hairs. The distinction between accusations about 'promotion' and 'practice' is about as important as you can get. It would be impossible to get any traction at all on difficult articles like pederasty and the like, if we ignore that distinction.

I have admitted the blame for the intemperate remarks. I apologise. I retract nothing else.

That threat biased the way the whoe matter was subsequently handled.

Of course, and another reason for regretting it. Any follow-up on the issues that concerned me - pseudoscience and all the rest - were thereafter treated as 'harrassment'.

Throughout this matter FT2 has received the worst possible press, his reputation has been torn to shreds and he has been villified. Now that the matter is about to be archived it seems wrong that it goes into the annals of history incomplete. Implying that you were informing the sort of people who would burn his house, dig up his dead grandmother and do God know's what to him, must have been very scary. That was not intemperate, it was pure intimidation. There is never an excuse for such behaviour no matter what the crime - real of imaginary. "Woops sorry" is for standing on someone's toe while dancing. You were fortunate it was FT2, not me, who won the election. You should have read my first emails to you a little closer at that time. I suggest now you let this story come to its final end, but please don't gloat, no one comes out of this with too much credit.

Giano

[Peter Damian]

Throughout this matter FT2 has received the worst possible press, his reputation has been torn to shreds and he has been villified. Now that the matter is about to be archived it seems wrong that it goes into the annals of history incomplete. Implying that you were informing the sort of people who would burn his house, dig up his dead grandmother and do God know's what to him, must have been very scary. That was not intemperate, it was pure intimidation. There is never an excuse for such behaviour no matter what the crime - real of imaginary. "Woops sorry" is for standing on someone's toe while dancing. You were fortunate it was FT2, not me, who won the election. You should have read my first emails to you a little closer at that time. I suggest now you let this story come to its final end, but please don't gloat, no one comes out of this with too much credit.

Your first email to me was on 30 June 2008. They mention nothing of this. Or do you mean PM? I am genuinely confused.


Your first PM was on 26 March 2008, concerning Durova. You include the comment "Thanks for your supportive words - it is very sad I have to come to WR to be able to see things in perspective". This was in recognition of the fact that I supported your point of view then, and have continued to support you until now. To the point of breaking up a friendship with someone here because they attacked you.
Your next PM was on 17th April, as follows:

Please help me with FT2 he has me so angry I am beside myself. people tell me my English is excellent, I work in London, I have a good job there, but i just cannot understand what he says, I cannot grasp his thread and points, I just get confused, I understand the inidividual words but not the contest. I don't see my self in the things he is sayin about me. He has a crazy mind just locked into me.

When Dragonfly announced on my talk last night that the blocking admin they used was a kid with emotional problems it became my view all who defend such actions become scum. That having used a young person (he is apparently at University) with problems in such a way, and then see the Arbcom defending them has made me realise they are not the sort of people I am comfortable being around.

Not one of them ever bothered to look and see that 1=2 (Higgin BC) had been pursuing me snapping at comments for ages. It has become too much. They have transformed a project with huge potential into nothing more than a second rate chatroom. The Arbcom are pernicious, malicious and stupid, and I need a break from them.

Please don't let WR attack the kid too much, but they can take FT2 to pieces and leave him so.

I'm just so pleased to see you taking piss out of his English, it makes me feel not so bad.

I have always defended you here and on-wiki with unswerving loyalty. I will try and continue to do so. So I don't quite understand why you are suddenly given me the Rottweiler treatment. I have apologised and said I regret those things 'bitterly'. Shall I say it again? It is not quite saying 'oops' after treading on someone's toe.

[Kelly Martin]

I have always defended you here and on-wiki with unswerving loyalty. I will try and continue to do so. So I don't quite understand why you are suddenly given me the Rottweiler treatment. I have apologised and said I regret those things 'bitterly'. Shall I say it again? It is not quite saying 'oops' after treading on someone's toe.

Peter, you were used in an attempt to take out one enemy; now they are hoping to flip that enemy in their quest to take out a greater one. They're more than willing to sacrifice you in that quest.

You will quickly discover that many of your "friends" don't actually care about you, but only aligned with you because you were against one of their enemies.